By Jonathan Stempel
(Reuters) - A new lawsuit accuses Procter & Gamble (NYSE:PG) of deceiving Charmin purchasers with misleading environmental claims, known as greenwashing, about how it sources its toilet paper.
In a proposed class action on Thursday, eight consumers said Procter & Gamble obtains most wood pulp for Charmin from the Canadian boreal forest, one of the world's most important biological ecosystems, through harmful logging practices such as clear cutting and burning.
The consumers called this sourcing "completely at odds" with Procter & Gamble's public commitment to protecting the environment, including its "Keep Forests as Forests" campaign and the "Protect-Grow-Restore" logo found on Charmin packages.
The lawsuit also called the display of logos from the Forest Stewardship Council and Rainforest Alliance misleading because Procter & Gamble uses little pulp from FSC-certified forests and the Rainforest Alliance no longer has a certification program.
Procter & Gamble's marketing deceived consumers into buying or paying too much for Charmin, and violated the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, which help companies avoid deceptive environmental claims, the lawsuit said.
The company must be held accountable for its "egregious environmental destruction of the largest intact forest in the world and stop hiding behind their false and misleading claims of environmental stewardship." the complaint said.
Procter & Gamble did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday.
The lawsuit in Seattle federal court seeks restitution, compensatory damages and punitive damages for violations of consumer protection laws in 28 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.
It also seeks to stop Procter & Gamble from making misleading environmental claims.
Last month, the Cincinnati-based company promised to disclose more details about how it audits wood-pulp suppliers, by mid-2025, following years of shareholder pressure to source forest products more sustainably.
Procter & Gamble has said it restricts some disclosures about its supply chain for competitive reasons.
The case, whose caption misspells Procter & Gamble's name, is Lowry et al v Proctor & Gamble Co, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 25-00108.