P&G Class Action Lawsuit: Charmin Toilet Paper Destroys Forests, Consumers Claim

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit accuses P&G of destroying Canadian forests for Charmin production and misleading consumers with false environmental claims.

Consumers Affected: Consumers in the U.S. who purchased Charmin toilet paper.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Procter & Gamble destroys precious Canadian forests to make its Chamin toilet paper and lies to consumers in the process, a new lawsuit challenging the company's environmental practices and marketing alleges.

The lawsuit alleges that the company falsely advertised Charmin as environmentally sustainable while relying on logging practices that harm Canada’s boreal forest, one of the world’s largest and most ecologically vital ecosystems. Plaintiffs claim P&G’s actions are a textbook case of greenwashing, misleading consumers into believing they were supporting sustainable practices when, in reality, the company was causing irreversible environmental damage.

P&G Accused of Destroying Canadian Forests for Charmin Production

The plaintiffs, a group of consumers from across the U.S., say they were drawn to Charmin due to marketing claims touting its sustainability. P&G’s packaging prominently displays logos and phrases such as “Protect-Grow-Restore” and “Keep Forests as Forests,” suggesting the company is committed to environmentally friendly practices. The plaintiffs allege these claims convinced them to pay a premium for Charmin, believing it was sustainably sourced.

However, the lawsuit argues that P&G’s supply chain relies on clear-cutting Canada’s boreal forest, a practice that depletes biodiversity and releases significant carbon emissions. The plaintiffs say they would not have purchased Charmin—or would have paid less—had they known the true environmental cost.

"Greenwashing" and Misleading Environmental Claims Alleged

P&G markets Charmin as part of an eco-conscious initiative, claiming the company plants at least two trees for every tree used and partners with organizations like the Arbor Day Foundation. However, the lawsuit contends these efforts are misleading. Plaintiffs allege the company’s replanting involves monoculture “Frankenforests” that lack the rich biodiversity of the original boreal ecosystem.

The lawsuit also calls into question P&G’s use of third-party certifications, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Rainforest Alliance logos. According to the complaint, P&G’s claims of using FSC-certified wood are exaggerated, and the Rainforest Alliance logo is no longer valid, as the certification program has ceased operations in Canada’s boreal forest.

This alleged greenwashing not only misleads consumers but also violates the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which regulate environmental marketing claims, the lawsuit states.

Consumers Pay Premium Price for "Sustainable" Charmin

Sustainability has become a key factor for consumers, with studies showing many are willing to pay up to 10% more for products marketed as environmentally friendly. According to the plaintiffs, P&G capitalized on this trend to inflate Charmin’s price, despite its practices contradicting the sustainability claims made at the point of sale. The complaint estimates consumers paid a premium of nearly $800 million over four years due to P&G’s alleged deceptive practices.

Other Companies Face Lawsuits Over Environmental Concerns

P&G isn’t the only major company facing scrutiny for misleading environmental claims. A recent lawsuit accuses major oil and chemical companies, including ExxonMobil and Chevron, of falsely marketing plastics as recyclable, contributing to increased pollution. Meanwhile, Verizon faces allegations of contaminating soil and water with lead-coated cables, and Shell is under fire for emissions that residents say have harmed their health.

In the lawsuit against P&G, the plaintiffs want to represent consumers from Washington, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Georgia, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont Texas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. They are suing for violations of state business acts and fraudulent concealment and are seeking enjoinment, damages, injunctive relief, fees, costs, and interest.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Lowry, et al. v. Proctor & Gamble Company
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00108
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington 

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Steve W. Berman and Catherine Y.N. Gannon (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP)
• Rebecca A. Peterson (George Feldman McDonald, PLLC)

Do you use Charmin toilet paper? What are your thoughts on this lawsuit? Share your opinion in the comments below.