*

Consumers say they were misled by environmental claims

*

Lawsuit claims company harms important Canadian forest

*

Procter & Gamble ( PG ) has pledged more disclosures

By Jonathan Stempel

Jan 17 (Reuters) - A new lawsuit accuses Procter &

Gamble ( 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 ( PG ) 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 ( PG ) 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 ( PG ) uses little pulp from FSC-certified forests and

the Rainforest Alliance no longer has a certification program.

Procter & Gamble's ( PG ) 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 ( PG ) 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 ( PG ) 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 ( PG ) has said it restricts some disclosures

about its supply chain for competitive reasons.

The case, whose caption misspells Procter & Gamble's ( PG ) name,

is Lowry et al v Proctor & Gamble Co, U.S. District Court,

Western District of Washington, No. 25-00108.