Procter and Gamble lawsuits span product safety, false advertising, environmental marketing, personal injury, employment discrimination, patents, and antitrust. Some have ended in multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements; many have been dismissed; several major class actions are still being litigated in 2026. The cases below are the ones that have shaped, or are currently shaping, P&G’s legal exposure.
Active Class Actions in 2026
Tampax Pearl Lead Contamination
Two class actions accuse P&G of selling Tampax Pearl tampons that contain lead. In Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company, filed in July 2024 in the Southern District of California, plaintiffs point to independent testing that reportedly found 0.181 micrograms of lead per gram of tampon material. They allege that typical daily use of three tampons exposes users to between 0.729 and 2.36 micrograms of lead, above California’s Proposition 65 maximum allowable dose of 0.5 micrograms per day. The complaint also accuses P&G of false advertising for marketing Tampax as free from perfume, dyes, and elemental chlorine while failing to disclose the alleged lead content.
In February 2025, Judge Gonzalo Curiel dismissed the fraud claims for lack of detail about the testing methodology but let the remaining claims proceed. The case is in discovery.
A second suit, Otkina et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Company, was filed in January 2026 in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers outside California. It alleges lead levels 12.6 to 40.8 times higher than the EPA’s action level for drinking water and argues that vaginal absorption bypasses the liver. The Otkina plaintiffs are seeking class certification and a jury trial.
Charmin and Puffs Greenwashing
Starting in January 2025, consumers filed a wave of class actions accusing P&G of “greenwashing” Charmin toilet paper and Puffs tissues. The complaints allege that P&G markets these products as environmentally sustainable through its “Keep Forests as Forests” campaign and “Protect-Grow-Restore” packaging logos while sourcing most of its wood pulp from Canada’s boreal forest using clear-cutting and burning. Plaintiffs also claim P&G misuses Forest Stewardship Council and Rainforest Alliance certification logos, arguing the company uses little FSC-certified pulp and that the Rainforest Alliance no longer maintains a certification program for these products.
Seven related cases from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Washington were consolidated in August 2025 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into MDL No. 3157, assigned to Judge Douglas R. Cole in the Southern District of Ohio. P&G filed a motion to dismiss in October 2025. Briefing wrapped in January 2026, and as of June 2026 the motion is pending while the parties negotiate document production.
Kid’s Crest Toothpaste Packaging
In Gurrola et al. v. Procter & Gamble, parents allege that Kid’s Crest toothpaste packaging depicts a full strip of toothpaste on the brush, encouraging children to use far more than the rice-grain-sized smear recommended for children under three. P&G argued state consumer protection claims were preempted because fluoride toothpaste is FDA-regulated. In November 2025, Judge Jorge Alonso in the Northern District of Illinois rejected that argument, ruling plaintiffs are challenging misleading imagery rather than FDA-mandated labels. The case is moving forward.
Settled Consumer Cases
Align Probiotic — Up to $30 Million
In Rikos et al. v. Procter & Gamble Co., consumers alleged P&G falsely advertised Align probiotic supplements as “clinically proven” to support digestive health. P&G agreed to pay up to $30 million. Judge Timothy S. Black granted final approval on April 30, 2018, in the Southern District of Ohio. The deal provided cash refunds of up to $49.26 per class member and funded digestive health research grants, with checks arriving in late 2018 and early 2019.
Charmin Freshmates “Flushable” Wipes
In Belfiore v. The Procter & Gamble Co., a New York consumer alleged that Charmin Freshmates wipes did not break down after flushing and caused plumbing damage, including a $526.83 sewer-backup bill. The 2014 case in the Eastern District of New York survived a motion to dismiss and settled. The court approved the deal on July 23, 2020, providing up to $50.20 per household. P&G also agreed to drop claims that Freshmates are “safe for sewer and septic systems.”
Consumer Cases That Were Dismissed
Not every advertising challenge against P&G has succeeded. Several recent ones have been thrown out, and it matters because news coverage of a filing can suggest a case that no longer exists.
Crest charcoal toothpaste. A 2021 class action in the Southern District of New York alleged P&G falsely marketed Crest charcoal toothpastes as “enamel safe” and able to promote “healthy gums.” The district court dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed in December 2022, finding the plaintiff failed to show the claims were misleading or that she was injured.
Pantene “Nature Fusion.” A consumer alleged the shampoo and conditioner were deceptively labeled because the bold “Nature Fusion” text and avocado imagery suggested natural ingredients. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal in June 2023, holding the phrase was ambiguous rather than misleading and that the ingredient list resolved any confusion. A concurring judge called the labeling “concerning” and likened it to greenwashing.
PFAS “forever chemicals.” In Dalewitz v. Procter & Gamble Co., a plaintiff claimed Oral-B Glide dental floss was deceptively marketed as “Pro-Health” despite containing PFAS. Judge Nelson Roman dismissed the case in September 2023 in the Southern District of New York, finding the underlying study itself acknowledged more data was needed on whether PFAS in floss migrates into the body. A separate suit alleging PFAS in “Pure Cotton” Tampax products was permanently dismissed by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in the Northern District of California in July 2025, which rejected the plaintiff’s testing methodology as flawed.
Old Spice Talc and Asbestos Verdicts
P&G continues to face personal injury litigation over asbestos exposure at its factories and alleged asbestos contamination in Old Spice talcum powder, a brand it acquired in 1990 for $300 million. Plaintiffs allege the talc came from mines where asbestos naturally occurs near talc deposits.
In April 2021, a California jury awarded $4.8 million to Willie McNeal Jr., a mesothelioma patient who had used Old Spice talcum powder for years. Reporting on the case described it as the first successful Old Spice talc verdict. The jury found the talc came from an asbestos-contaminated mine in North Carolina and that the mine owners knew about the contamination. Another mesothelioma patient who used Old Spice was awarded more than $3.4 million against P&G and other defendants in 2022. Individual settlements have included $6 million for a former Navy veteran and $1.8 million for a former plant worker. These are individual lawsuits, not a class action.
DACA Hiring Discrimination Settlement
In Rodriguez v. The Procter & Gamble Company, filed in July 2017 in federal court in Miami, a DACA recipient alleged P&G discriminated against non-citizens by screening out internship and entry-level applicants who lacked long-term work authorization, even when they were legally authorized to work. The suit was brought under federal Section 1981. P&G settled in 2021 for $1.5 million to class members, plus up to $80,000 in costs and attorneys’ fees. The company also agreed to update its application process and FAQ page to state that DACA recipients and other work-authorized non-citizens are eligible for employment, and to train recruiters not to ask about immigration status.
Patent Disputes
In January 2022, CAO Group sued P&G for patent infringement in the Central District of California over teeth-whitening strip technology. The parties settled in March 2023 on undisclosed terms.
In June 2024, P&G sued Dr. Squatch, a direct-to-consumer personal care brand, in the same court, asserting five patents on personal care formulations against eleven Dr. Squatch product lines. The district court case was stayed after 43 days pending inter partes review at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
P&G also prevailed in a Chinese patent case in which plaintiffs sought roughly 100 million yuan (about $14 million at the time) over a laundry detergent pouch patent. The Shanghai IP Court dismissed the infringement claim after China’s National IP Administration invalidated the patent, and a challenge to that invalidation failed.
FTC v. Procter & Gamble (1967)
P&G’s most historically significant case predates most of its current product lines. In 1957, P&G acquired Clorox Chemical Co., then the dominant liquid bleach maker with nearly half the national market. The Federal Trade Commission challenged the deal under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. In a unanimous 1967 decision authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the Supreme Court ruled the acquisition illegal and ordered P&G to divest Clorox. The Court found that P&G’s advertising budget and market power would have raised barriers to entry, stiffened an already concentrated oligopoly, and eliminated P&G as the most likely independent entrant into bleach. The decision established the “potential competition” doctrine and confirmed that corporate efficiencies cannot justify a merger that lessens competition.
Regulatory Penalties Totals
According to the Violation Tracker database maintained by Good Jobs First, P&G has accumulated roughly $89.7 million in regulatory penalties across 60 recorded enforcement actions since 2000. Consumer protection cases account for about $88.35 million of that total across four major actions, including the Align settlement and a $50 million private federal lawsuit penalty recorded in 2014. Environmental penalties total about $504,000 across 15 EPA and state actions. Employment-related penalties total roughly $491,000, including wage-and-hour violations, a $100,000 NLRB penalty in 2003, and a small DOJ employment discrimination penalty in 2023. The company has also accumulated 35 workplace safety records, mostly OSHA violations at manufacturing facilities, and 20 railroad safety penalties from the Federal Railroad Administration.