Published
April 25, 2026
If you bought Charmin toilet paper partly for its eco-friendly marketing, a new federal complaint says P&G's "Keep Forests as Forests" claims are misleading — here is what was filed and who is covered.
Charmin Toilet Paper Class Action Lawsuit: What Was Just Filed
A new class action complaint accuses Procter & Gamble of running a multi-year greenwashing campaign on Charmin toilet paper, the best-selling toilet paper brand in the United States. The lawsuit, captioned Lowry, Alzaldi, Chornomud, Cuevas, Giarrizzo, Grant, Meuse and Williams v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00108, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of consumers in roughly 30 states and the District of Columbia.The eight named plaintiffs come from Washington, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts and say they bought Charmin in part because of its sustainability marketing. The complaint alleges that P&G's "Keep Forests as Forests" umbrella campaign and the "Protect-Grow-Restore" logo on Charmin packaging convey a level of environmental responsibility that the company's actual supply chain does not support. According to the complaint, Charmin pulp is sourced from areas of the Canadian boreal forest harvested through clear-cutting and slash burning, and replanted areas are converted into single-species tree plantations rather than the biodiverse primary forest that was harvested.
The case is at the complaint stage. P&G has not formally responded, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement, claim form, or payout to claim at this time.
Status
Lawsuit Filed
no claim form yet · no settlement
Filed
January 16, 2025
Defendant
Procter & Gamble Company
Charmin toilet paper
Class Period
Jan 16, 2021 to Jan 16, 2025
WA, CA, IL, MA + ~25 multistate
Why a Toilet Paper Greenwashing Lawsuit Is a Big Deal
Greenwashing class actions over consumer goods have grown steadily in the last few years, but most have targeted small claims on single product lines. The Charmin complaint is unusually broad because it goes after one of the most recognizable consumer brands in America. Charmin holds roughly 25% of the North American toilet paper market and generates around $2 billion in U.S. sales each year, and the complaint cites Census data indicating that more than 86 million Americans used Charmin Ultra in 2020 alone.The legal theory leans heavily on the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, which the complaint uses as a framework for what marketers can and cannot say about environmental benefits. At least 12 states write the Green Guides directly into their consumer-protection laws, and another 27 treat them as persuasive authority. That layered structure is part of why the plaintiffs are pursuing both state-specific consumer-fraud claims and a parallel set of fraudulent-concealment counts in states without a directly applicable statute.
"Keep Forests as Forests" and "Protect-Grow-Restore": The Marketing Under Attack
The complaint focuses on three promises P&G makes to consumers under the umbrella of "Keep Forests as Forests":• Protect. Charmin claims to use only pulp certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and the FSC logo appears prominently on the front of Charmin packaging.
• Grow. Charmin promises that "for every tree used at least two are regrown in its place."
• Restore. Charmin advertises a partnership with the Arbor Day Foundation to plant one million trees in forests affected by natural disasters between 2020 and 2025.
The plaintiffs say each promise is misleading. They allege P&G has admitted internally that the available supply of FSC-certified pulp in Canada is insufficient for its production needs and that the company has shifted to less rigorous chain-of-custody and controlled-wood designations and to other certifiers (Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) without changing the prominent FSC logo on packaging. The complaint also alleges that the "Rainforest Alliance Certified" seal still appearing on Charmin marketing materials is obsolete because the Rainforest Alliance ended that certification program and does not operate in the boreal forest.
"Frankenforests": The Replanting Allegation
The most striking allegation in the complaint is that the "Grow" and "Restore" promises hide what actually happens after Charmin's suppliers harvest a section of boreal forest. The plaintiffs allege that suppliers replant single-species conifers in evenly spaced rows and apply aerial herbicides like glyphosate to suppress everything except the most commercially valuable trees. The complaint refers to these plantings as "Frankenforests" and includes aerial photographs of an example site in the Wabigoon area of Northern Ontario, where a previously clear-cut area has already been designated for another slash-and-burn cycle in 2025.The complaint argues that this kind of replanting is not the same as restoring a primary forest, because boreal primary forests store roughly twice as much carbon per acre as the Amazon rainforest and host a unique mix of caribou, salmon, black bears, three billion nesting birds, and a wide range of insects, fungi, and microorganisms that monoculture plantations cannot support. The "two trees for every tree used" promise, the plaintiffs say, gives consumers a false impression that the harvested ecosystem is being replaced when it is being converted.
30-Second Self-Test: Could You Be a Class Member?
You may fit one of the proposed classes if all of the following are true:• You bought Charmin toilet paper between January 16, 2021 and January 16, 2025.
• You purchased it in Washington, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, or one of roughly 25 other states or the District of Columbia covered by the multistate counts.
• You saw or relied on Charmin's sustainability marketing (FSC logo, "Protect-Grow-Restore" logo, "Keep Forests as Forests" claims, or similar messages on packaging, online listings at Walmart / Costco / Kroger / Amazon / Lowe's, or the Charmin Sustainability Promise website).
• You are not an employee, officer, or immediate family member of P&G, and you have not opted out of the proposed classes.
Class certification has not been granted, and the case is still in its early stages, so nothing is required of consumers right now. There is no claim form to fill out yet.
Is This a Charmin Refund Scam? How to Spot Fake Class Action Texts and Emails
Whenever a consumer class action against a household-name brand makes headlines, scammers send fake "class action refund" texts and emails asking people to confirm payment details, pay a small "processing fee," or click a shortened link to claim a payout. A few signals separate this real lawsuit from a scam:• There is no Charmin claim form yet. Anyone telling you to file a Charmin claim today is not running the real case.
• If a settlement is later reached, the court will appoint a settlement administrator, and the only legitimate filing instructions will appear on a court-approved official settlement website (the equivalent of an "ABC Settlement.com").
• A real claim is free to file. No settlement administrator asks for credit-card numbers, cryptocurrency, gift cards, or up-front fees.
• A real notice never asks for your full Social Security number or banking passwords. At most, modern administrators may ask for the last four digits of your SSN or a unique claim ID mailed or emailed to you.
• If a text asks you to click a shortened link to "verify your Charmin purchase," it is not part of the litigation.
Damages: How Much Could a Charmin Greenwashing Settlement Be Worth?
The complaint anchors its damages theory in survey work by PricewaterhouseCoopers indicating that consumers will pay roughly 9.7% more for products marketed as sustainably produced or sourced. Applied to Charmin's roughly $2 billion in annual U.S. sales over a four-year class period, the plaintiffs estimate a minimum overpayment of around $200 million per year, or roughly $800 million across the proposed class period. The actual recovery, if any, would depend on which claims survive motions to dismiss and on whether the court certifies one or more of the proposed statewide and multistate classes. Punitive damages are also requested under several state laws.For comparison, the complaint notes that competing tissue brands have moved more aggressively on sustainability. Kimberly-Clark has committed to halving its sourcing from natural forests by 2025, and Whole Foods 365, Trader Joe's, and Seventh Generation incorporate recycled fiber into their tissue products. Charmin uses zero recycled material and has earned an "F" grade in all six editions of the National Resources Defense Council's "Issue with Tissue" scorecard.
What Happens Next in the Charmin Class Action
The case is in its earliest phase. The next milestones to watch are:• P&G's response to the complaint, which will likely include a motion to dismiss.
• The court's decision on whether the proposed Washington, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and multistate classes can be certified for litigation purposes.
• Any preliminary injunction motion seeking to change Charmin's packaging or marketing language while the case is pending.
• A possible mediation phase if the case survives early motions, which is where most consumer class actions of this size eventually settle.
OpenClassActions.com will update this article and publish a dedicated settlement page if and when P&G reaches a court-approved resolution that lets consumers file claims.
FTC Green Guides Violations: What the Complaint Cites
The complaint identifies multiple specific Green Guide sections that P&G allegedly violates:• Section 260.2 on substantiation, which requires that environmental claims be backed by competent and reliable scientific evidence.
• Section 260.3(a) on qualifications and disclosures, which requires environmental claims to be clear, prominent, and understandable, including any qualifying language.
• Section 260.3(c) on overstatement of environmental attribute, which prohibits claims that overstate, directly or by implication, an environmental benefit.
• Section 260.4 on general environmental benefit claims, which warns marketers against unqualified claims that imply far-reaching benefits or no negative impact.
• Section 260.6 on certifications and seals of approval, which requires marketers to substantiate the basis for any third-party seal and to disclose the limited scope of any certification.
Related Class Actions on OpenClassActions.com
Greenwashing complaints over recyclable, compostable, and "natural" labels have moved from niche disputes to mainstream consumer-protection cases. A few related OCA reports:• Hefty "Recycling" Bags Settlement — Arizona attorney-general action over bags marketed for recycling that ended up in landfills; restitution complaints accepted through October 1, 2026.
• Great Value Recycling Bags $3 Million Class Action Settlement — Walmart store-brand bags advertised as recyclable when curbside recycling was not actually available for the product.
• Sprouts "Compostable" Products PFAS Class Action — "compostable" tableware allegedly contains PFAS forever chemicals, with FTC Green Guide and California environmental-marketing claims that mirror the Charmin theory.
• Procter & Gamble Tide Pods Recall — another consumer case involving the same defendant; useful background on how P&G has handled prior product disputes.
• Simply Orange Juice Class Action Lawsuit — Coca-Cola sued over "all natural" / "100% pure" juice marketing while the product allegedly contained PFAS, another marketing-versus-supply-chain mismatch.
Sources
• Lowry, et al. v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00108, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Class Action Complaint filed January 16, 2025)• Federal Trade Commission, Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 C.F.R. Part 260 ("Green Guides")
• National Resources Defense Council, "The Issue With Tissue" scorecard (Sixth Edition, 2024)
About Class Action News Coverage
OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site. We report on filed complaints, proposed settlements, and final approval orders. We are not a law firm, we are not the settlement administrator for any case, and we do not process or decide claims. The information in this article is based on the publicly filed complaint and does not assume that any allegation is true. Procter & Gamble is entitled to a presumption of innocence on every claim made against it, and the court has not yet made any ruling on the merits.| Case Snapshot | |
| Status | Complaint Filed (no settlement yet) |
|---|---|
| Filed | January 16, 2025 |
| Category | Greenwashing / Consumer Fraud |
| Defendant | Procter & Gamble Company |
| Product at Issue | Charmin toilet paper (Ultra Soft, Ultra Strong, Ultra Gentle, Essentials Soft, Essentials Strong) |
| Case Number | 2:25-cv-00108 |
| Case Title | Lowry, et al. v. Procter & Gamble Company |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington |
| Proposed Class Period | January 16, 2021 to January 16, 2025 |
| States Covered | WA, CA, IL, MA + multistate group of approximately 25 additional states and DC |
| Estimated Damages Theory | Approximately $200 million per year in alleged overpayment |
| Claim Form Available? | No - case is at complaint stage |
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
