Hagens Berman has filed a class-action lawsuit against Procter & Gamble, alleging that on-pack environmental claims about its Charmin toilet paper ‘mask’ the corporation’s ‘widespread deforestation practices’.
Filed on 16th January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the lawsuit claims that P&G contributes to the deforestation of Canadian boreal forests to manufacture its toilet paper, yet engages in ‘greenwashing practices’ to market the product to environmentally conscious consumers.
Hagens Berman points to several instances where, in its view, P&G has intentionally misled consumers and violated the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides on environmental marketing claims. For instance, the packaging and marketing materials for Charmin products utilize ‘eco-friendly’ buzzwords and ‘hazy’ FSC and Rainforest Alliance certifications.
These include claims that Charmin “helps to protect, grow and restore trees” – yet attorneys argue that, since the Rainforest Alliance no longer certifies pulp products, P&G helped found its new Forest Allies programme to utilize an ‘altered but nearly identical seal’, with the difference between the two never made clear to consumers.
Furthermore, the lawsuit accuses P&G of failing to disclose that the Forest Allies programme provides no certification services and ‘doesn’t even operate in the boreal forest’.
“P&G intentionally concealed and suppressed material facts regarding its Charmin toilet paper,” it reads. “These material facts include that (i) Charmin sources its wood pulp via industrial logging practices such as clear-cutting and burning; (ii) that Charmin suppliers are systematically converting critically important old-growth forests into environmentally devastating Frankenforests; (iii) that only a fraction of its wood pulp is sourced from FSC certified forests; (iv) and that the Rainforest Alliance continues to provide certification to Charmin products.”
Attorneys go on to suggest that P&G obscures its deforestation practices behind ‘semantics’ in its online marketing; the lawsuit goes on to say that “P&G’s Protect-Grow-Restore messaging about replanting 1-2 trees for every tree used in its products intentionally misleads consumers to believe that its Charmin suppliers are converting the specific boreal forest areas logged with replanting activities that mimic the intact ecosystem that was there before the harvesting occurred. But P&G fails to disclose that, in reality, its suppliers are replanting single species conifers, evenly spaced, and covered in chemical herbicides.
“These Frankenforests are nothing more than monoculture tree crops that degrade overall forest health, reduce biodiversity and alter the boreal forest’s unique structure. Moreover, these Frankenforests have less carbon storage capability and are unsuitable for most wildlife for the first few decades.”
Additionally, P&G is said to have misrepresented its products on third-party seller websites, including Walmart and Amazon. Therefore, consumers ‘had no way of knowing’ where P&G sources its pulp, or whether it effectively restores biodiversity in the forests where its logging takes place.
As such, the lawsuit brings claims of fraudulent concealment and violation of state-consumer protection laws surrounding fraud, unfair competition, and deceptive business practices. It adds that P&G has violated the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which many U.S. states have incorporated into their consumer protection laws.
“P&G puts emphatic effort into the packaging and online marketing of Charmin toilet paper, wasting no opportunity to fill this space with empty promises of its commitment to the protection of trees, restoration of habitats and alleged responsible forestry,” said Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens Berman. “It’s worse enough to fail to meet those promises in the first place, but P&G has profited from them, raking in billions in revenue from consumers hoping to make planet-friendly purchases at the supermarket.”
“P&G’s excessive greenwashing of Charmin toilet paper conceals an ugly truth that production of its product threatens the boreal forest — a critical resource for our planet that stores 30 to 40 percent of land-based carbon. It’s clear that Procter & Gamble’s dedication to the environment is paper thin and its only green concern is cash.”
In other recent news, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of non-profits – including the Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay, and San Francisco Baykeeper – filed lawsuits alleging that ExxonMobil had violated state laws related to false advertising, unfair competition, and water pollution.
The oil and gas corporation was accused of misleading consumers into buying more single-use plastics under the impression they would be recycled at end-of-life; however, ExxonMobil’s advanced recycling equipment is reportedly incapable of handling such high quantities, with most of the waste said to be used as fuel.
In response, ExxonMobil has filed a countersuit requesting undisclosed damages and a retraction of the statements, arguing that the criticism against its practices amounts to defamation. It suggests that California officials are passing on the blame for inefficiencies in the state’s recycling system, with Bonta’s lawsuit linked to Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, its founder Andrew Forrest, and his environmental foundation, Minderoo Foundation.
Meanwhile in Europe, several EU Member States are facing legal action from the European Commission for failing to comply with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Single Market Transparency Directive, the Waste Framework Directive, the Landfill Directive, and other EU laws. These proceedings aim to ‘ensure the proper application of EU law for the benefit of citizens and businesses’.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation in 2024
How are the top brands progressing on packaging sustainability?
Sustainable Innovation Report 2024: Current trends and future priorities
Everything you need to know about global plastic sustainability regulation
No comments yet