- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Washington
- /
- Lowry v. Procter & Gamble Co.
Lowry v. Procter & Gamble Co.
Geography
Year
2025
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2025
Status
Amended class action complaint filed.
Geography
Docket number
2:25-cv-00108
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (W.D. Wash.)
Case category
State Law Claims (US) → Environmentalist Lawsuits (US)
Principal law
United States → Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices ActUnited States → Fraudulent ConcealmentUnited States → South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act
At issue
Greenwashing class action against the manufacturer of Charmin toilet paper.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
03/20/2025
Motion to dismiss filed.
Motion To Dismiss
01/16/2025
Complaint filed.
Consumers filed a greenwashing class action in the federal district court for the Western District Washington against Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G), the manufacturer of Charmin toilet paper. They alleged that the company had for years “been complicit in the clear cutting of untouched ancient primary forests in order to sell billions of dollars of single use toilet paper – all the while reassuring consumers with false claims that it was helping to regrow and restore these unique forests.” The allegedly misleading claims made by P&G included statements to investors related to climate change and carbon storage, including that it was investing in “natural climate solutions that can remove and store more carbon.” The complaint also alleged that the company’s “Keep Forests as Forests” marketing campaign and “Protect-Grow-Restore” messaging for Charmin misled consumers by failing to disclose that most wood pulp used to manufacture Charmin is from Canada’s boreal forest, which the complaint described as “one of the last large primary forests on earth.” The complaint alleged that primary forests store 30¬–40% of the earth’s land-based carbon and that P&G intentionally misled consumers to believe that its suppliers’ replanting efforts in logged areas were able to mimic the previously existing ecosystems. In addition, the complaint alleged improper use of third-party logos regarding sustainability and violation of the Federal Trade Commission Green Guides. The plaintiffs asserted claims of fraudulent concealment and violations of state consumer protection laws on behalf of classes in a number of states. They sought injunctive relief as well as costs, restitution, damages, including punitive damages, and disgorgement.
Complaint
Summary
Greenwashing class action against the manufacturer of Charmin toilet paper.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance