Lawsuits claiming that tampons contain PFAS “forever chemicals” have largely failed in court. The two highest-profile PFAS tampon lawsuits, against Procter & Gamble over Tampax Pure Cotton and against Edgewell Personal Care over Playtex and O.B. tampons, were all dismissed by federal judges who found the plaintiffs’ testing could not actually prove PFAS were present. No tampon manufacturer has agreed to a PFAS settlement. The consumer payouts that have made headlines came from period underwear cases against Thinx and Knix, which are a separate product category. A different wave of lawsuits accusing tampon makers of selling products contaminated with lead is still moving forward.
Status of the Main PFAS Tampon Cases
Three federal class actions carried the PFAS tampon theory, and all three are now closed without any recovery for consumers.
The leading case, Bounthon et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Company, was filed on February 21, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.1Classaction.org. Bounthon et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Company Class Action Complaint Three California consumers alleged that P&G’s marketing of Tampax Pure Cotton as “pure” and “100% Organic Cotton Core” was deceptive because independent testing had detected organic fluorine, which they argued is an accepted indicator of PFAS. The complaint relied on California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and said consumers would have paid less or not bought the tampons at all had they known.
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín dismissed the second amended complaint on October 15, 2024, and gave the plaintiffs one more chance. She found their reliance on total organic fluorine testing “implausible” as proof of PFAS, pointing out that the plaintiffs’ own cited science acknowledged the method can pick up non-PFAS chemicals and that the roughly 30 parts per million they detected was well below the 100 ppm threshold in the materials they submitted.2Dechert LLP. Northern District of California Rejects Claims That Tampons Contain PFAS After a third amended complaint repeated the same approach, the judge dismissed the case with prejudice on July 7, 2025, denying any further opportunity to amend.3Law360. P&G Beats False Ad Suit Over Pure Cotton Tampax for Good A dismissal with prejudice means the case cannot be refiled.
Two parallel cases against Edgewell Personal Care Company, which makes Playtex and O.B. tampons, met the same fate. Lowe v. Edgewell Personal Care Company (No. 3:23-cv-00834) and Mack v. Edgewell Personal Care Company (No. 3:23-cv-00837) were filed in the Northern District of California and assigned to the same judge handling the Tampax case. Both were dismissed on January 12, 2024, for lack of factual support for the PFAS contamination claims.4Law360. Judge Rejects Suits Claiming PFAS in O.B., Playtex Tampons The Lowe docket was terminated on March 10, 2025, with no sign the plaintiff refiled or appealed.5CourtListener. Lowe v. Edgewell Personal Care Company
There is no active PFAS class action against a major tampon brand to join, and no settlement fund to file a claim against.
Why the Tampon Cases Lost
The tampon cases turned on a single question: whether the plaintiffs’ testing actually proved PFAS were in the products. It did not, in the court’s view.
Plaintiffs relied on “total organic fluorine” screening, which measures organofluorine content broadly as a stand-in for the thousands of individual PFAS compounds. P&G argued this is unreliable because the method flags organofluorine chemicals that are not PFAS, and because the complaints never alleged that the detected levels were harmful.6CaseMine. Bounthon v. The Procter & Gamble Co. The court accepted that argument, and the ruling signaled that future PFAS product cases in this district will need targeted testing identifying specific PFAS compounds, not a general fluorine screen.3Law360. P&G Beats False Ad Suit Over Pure Cotton Tampax for Good
The underlying science is more mixed than the dismissals might suggest. A University of Notre Dame study of 123 period products found that tampon cores generally did not contain fluorine, though wrappers of some pads and tampons did, and period underwear showed much higher levels.7American Chemical Society. Indicator of PFAS Found in Some but Not All Period Products A July 2025 study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters detected PFAS in nearly 30% of 59 reusable hygiene products at levels consistent with intentional use. Researchers also noted that how much PFAS might absorb through vaginal tissue is “not well understood.”8Indiana University O’Neill School. Forever Chemicals in Reusable Feminine Hygiene Products That uncertainty has made it hard for plaintiffs to allege concrete harm with the specificity courts have required.
Period Underwear Settlements Are Not Tampon Settlements
If you have seen news about PFAS payouts in menstrual products, it almost certainly concerned period underwear, not tampons. These are the resolutions that produced actual consumer refunds.
Dickens et al. v. Thinx Inc. (No. 1:22-cv-4286-JMF) settled for up to $5 million, consisting of a $4 million base fund and a $1 million replenishment if needed. Consumers who bought covered Thinx products between November 2016 and November 2022 could claim $7 per pair with proof of purchase or $3.50 without, up to three pairs. The settlement received final approval on June 8, 2023, and Thinx did not admit wrongdoing.9Thinx Underwear Settlement. Dickens et al. v. Thinx Inc. Settlement FAQ
Knix Wear faced two suits. Rivera et al. v. Knix Wear, Inc. (No. 5:22-cv-02137), filed in California in April 2022, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in August and September 2023.10Classaction.org. Knix Wear Does Not Disclose That Menstrual Underwear Contains PFAS, Class Action Alleges Spencer et al. v. Knix Wear Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-07823-JLR), filed in the Southern District of New York, settled for $1.4 million. Eligible consumers who bought Knix products between January 2020 and December 2022 could receive up to $5.30 per product, capped at $15.90 per person. Knix also agreed to two years of increased PFAS testing and to remove website claims describing products as “PFAS-free,” “toxic chemical-free,” or “fluorine-free.” The claims deadline passed in March 2024.11Top Class Actions. Knix Toxic Chemicals $1.4M Class Action Settlement
Both Thinx and Knix claim windows have closed.
Lead-in-Tampons Cases Are Still Active
While PFAS claims against tampon makers have collapsed, a separate line of lawsuits accusing those same manufacturers of selling tampons contaminated with lead is still moving forward.
Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company (No. 3:24-cv-01332), filed July 29, 2024, in the Southern District of California, alleges that Tampax Pearl tampons contain lead at levels that, when accounting for daily use of multiple tampons, exceed California’s Proposition 65 maximum allowable dose.12Classaction.org. Tampax Pearl Lawsuit Claims Tampons Contain Dangerous Amounts of Lead A companion case, Barton v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation (No. 3:24-cv-01337), makes similar claims about U by Kotex Click tampons. In August 2025, a federal judge largely denied Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss, allowing that case to proceed.13Bloomberg Law. U by Kotex Tampon Maker Can’t Shake Lead Deception Class Suit Both lead cases remain pending.
These are different claims about different contaminants. A reader who assumed the broader “chemicals in tampons” litigation was over should know that the lead cases are the ones still live.
State Laws Banning PFAS in Menstrual Products
Federal law sets no PFAS limits for menstrual products. The FDA classifies tampons as Class II medical devices but does not require testing or disclosure of PFAS content. States have moved on their own.
California’s AB 2515, signed September 30, 2024, bans the manufacture, distribution, and sale of menstrual products containing regulated PFAS. The state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control must publish accepted testing methods by January 1, 2027, adopt enforcement regulations by January 1, 2029, and begin requiring manufacturer registration and compliance certification by July 1, 2029.14California Digital Democracy. AB 2515
New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed bill S.1548 on December 19, 2025, prohibiting intentionally added PFAS, lead, mercury, formaldehyde, and other restricted substances in menstrual products. The ban takes effect December 19, 2026, with maximum levels for unintentional contamination to be set no later than 2029.15New York State Senate. NY Senate Bill S1548
Vermont was the first state to enact such a ban, with its law taking effect in January 2026. Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have also enacted restrictions, with effective dates varying through the late 2020s.16Chemistry World. First US State Bans PFAS, Other Chemicals From Period Products At least 37 states were considering some form of PFAS restriction legislation in 2025.
For now, the courthouse route against tampon manufacturers over PFAS specifically has closed. The remedies going forward are legislative and regulatory, and for individual consumers who still want to pursue a tampon contamination claim, the active docket is the lead cases, not PFAS.