Fact Check: P&G has become a focal point in the battle against corporate greenwashing, with five class-action lawsuits filed in 2025 across federal districts in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York

**Verdict:** The core idea—that P&G is facing greenwashing class-action litigation over its “Keep Forests as Forests” / “Protect‑Grow‑Restore” marketing and alleged use of FSC and Rainforest Alliance logos—is accurate. But the specific claim about “five class‑action lawsuits filed in 2025 across federal districts in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York” is **not precise** based on the best available public records. --- ## What’s confirmed ✅ 1. **There is a major greenwashing class action targeting P&G’s Charmin marketing.** - Climate Case Chart summarizes *Lowry v. Procter & Gamble Co.*, a greenwashing class action filed in **federal court in the Western District of Washington** (Seattle). The suit alleges P&G misled consumers with its “Keep Forests as Forests” and “Protect‑Grow‑Restore” campaigns, while sourcing pulp from Canada’s boreal forest via clearcutting and burning, and misusing third‑party sustainability logos (FSC, Rainforest Alliance, etc.). - ClassAction.org’s summary of *Lowry v. Procter & Gamble Company* (filed January 16, 2025) likewise describes a 112‑page complaint alleging that Charmin’s sustainability promises and logos are deceptive and that only a small fraction of pulp is FSC‑certified, while the Rainforest Alliance seal is outdated and not applicable to the boreal forest. 2. **The lawsuits explicitly attack the same themes you mention.** These filings: - Challenge P&G’s “Keep Forests as Forests” / “Protect‑Grow‑Restore” messaging and Arbor Day Foundation partnership as misleading about replanting and restoration. - Claim that P&G’s suppliers create monoculture “Frankenforests” instead of restoring intact, biodiverse forest ecosystems. - Argue that the use of FSC and Rainforest Alliance logos is deceptive given the limited share of FSC‑certified pulp and the current status/scope of Rainforest Alliance certification. 3. **P&G has indeed become a prominent legal target on greenwashing.** - The case is being tracked by Climate Case Chart as a climate/greenwashing matter. - Specialist firms like Hagens Berman describe it as a major consumer‑environmental class action and highlight the broader issue of boreal forest deforestation and green marketing. So the broad characterization of P&G as a *focal point* in greenwashing litigation is **reasonable as an opinion**, though that phrase itself is evaluative rather than a strict factual claim. --- ## What’s inaccurate or incomplete ❗ The problematic part of your sentence is: > “with **five class-action lawsuits** filed in 2025 across federal districts in **California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York**” What the record actually shows: 1. **Number of lawsuits: at least seven, not five.** Hagens Berman’s case page for the Charmin litigation states that, after the initial January 16, 2025 complaint, **seven separate actions** were filed in **six federal district courts** by mid‑2025, all alleging greenwashing around Charmin and Puffs brands. - These cases were pending in: - California - Illinois - Massachusetts - New York (two cases) - Minnesota - Washington Your claim of “five” suits in those states understates both: - The **count** (at least seven actions), and - The **set of forums** (you omit Washington). 2. **Washington is a key forum that your sentence omits.** - Climate Case Chart explicitly notes that the foundational case was filed in the **Western District of Washington**. - Hagens Berman confirms that Washington is one of the six federal districts where related actions were filed. So a more accurate description would be that multiple related class actions were filed in **California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Washington**—not just the five states you list. 3. **Later procedural history: consolidation in Ohio.** Your sentence also stops at the initial filings, but the litigation quickly evolved: - On **Aug. 8, 2025**, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred **seven related actions** to the **U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio** for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, under the caption: > *In re: Procter & Gamble Company “Protect, Grow and Restore” Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation*. - That means the live federal litigation is now centralized in **Ohio**, which your statement does not reflect. 4. **Climate Case Chart is cited, but it does not say “five lawsuits in CA, IL, MA, MN, NY.”** - The Climate Case Chart entry you reference discusses a **single** greenwashing class action (Lowry) and the allegations around boreal forest sourcing and misleading marketing. - The detailed multi‑district/lawsuit count comes more clearly from Hagens Berman’s case timeline, not from Climate Case Chart itself. --- ## Bottom line - **Accurate:** - P&G is facing significant greenwashing class‑action litigation over Charmin’s environmental marketing. - The allegations center on precisely the issues you describe: “Keep Forests as Forests,” “Protect‑Grow‑Restore,” boreal forest clearcutting, and allegedly misleading use of FSC/Rainforest Alliance logos. - **Not accurate / incomplete:** - The specific claim that there were **“five class‑action lawsuits”** filed in **California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York** is **incomplete and numerically off**. - Evidence from 2025 shows **at least seven related actions in six federal districts** (including **Washington**) that were later **consolidated in the Southern District of Ohio**. If you’re using this for an article or memo, would you like a tightened, citation‑ready one‑ or two‑sentence version of this story that’s both factually accurate and investor‑relevant?