Procter & Gamble has been accused of ‘greenwashing’ Charmin toilet paper, the suit says

By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) – A new lawsuit accuses Procter & Gamble of making misleading environmental claims about how it produces its toilet paper, known as greenwashing, against buyers of Charmin.

In a class action filed on Thursday, eight consumers said Procter & Gamble Le Charmin gets it from Canada’s boreal forest, one of the world’s most important biological ecosystems, through harmful logging practices such as clear cutting and burning.

Consumers say this source is in stark contrast to Procter & Gamble’s public commitment to protecting the environment, including its “Keep Forests as Forests” campaign and the “Protect-Grow-Restore” logo on Charmin packages.

The suit also called the Forest Stewardship Council and Rainforest Alliance logos misleading because Procter & Gamble uses less than FSC-certified forests and the Rainforest Alliance no longer has a certification program.

Procter & Gamble’s marketing misled consumers into buying or paying too much for Charmin, the lawsuit said, violating the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guidelines, which help companies avoid misleading environmental claims.

The company must be held accountable for “the catastrophic environmental destruction of the world’s largest unmanaged forest and stop hiding behind the false and misleading claims of environmental stewardship.” He expressed his displeasure.

Proctor and Gamble did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

The suit in federal court in Seattle seeks restitution, restitution and punitive damages for violating consumer protection laws in 28 US states and Washington, DC.

It also seeks to stop Procter & Gamble from making misleading environmental claims.

Last month, the Cincinnati-based company promised to reveal more details on how it will audit wood-pulp suppliers by mid-2025, following pressure from shareholders to source forest products more sustainably.

Procter & Gamble said it restricts certain disclosures about its supply chain for competitive reasons.

The case, a misspelling of the name Procter & Gamble, is Lowry & Al v. Procter & Gamble Co, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 25-00108.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)