The Rael pads lawsuit that matters most is Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael, Inc., a California case alleging the company’s “organic cotton cover” pads, liners, and period underwear are falsely labeled because they contain substantial non-organic materials. A trial court threw the case out. The Court of Appeal reinstated it in November 2025. The California Supreme Court has now agreed to decide whether California’s organic labeling law reaches personal care products at all. A separate federal class action targets Rael’s wipes, not its pads, and independent testing has raised PFAS questions the company disputes.
The Organic Cotton Pads Case
The Environmental Democracy Project, a California nonprofit that challenges deceptive environmental claims, sued Rael in Alameda County Superior Court under the California Organic Food and Farming Act (COFFA). The law sets content thresholds for anything sold as organic in California: products labeled “organic” must be at least 95% certified organic by weight (excluding water and salt), and products labeled “made with organic” materials must hit 70%.1FindLaw. Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael, Inc.
EDP’s claim is that Rael’s pads, panty liners, and period underwear cannot meet those thresholds because they contain polyethylene, polypropylene, super absorbent polymers, elastics, and waterproof backing alongside the organic cotton cover.1FindLaw. Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael, Inc.
Trial Court Dismissal
Alameda Superior Court Judge Stephen D. Klaus granted judgment on the pleadings for Rael. He read COFFA as a statute aimed at agricultural products, food, cosmetics, and pet food, and concluded it did not reach feminine hygiene products.2Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Organic Labeling Cases Are Added to the Supreme Court’s Docket
Appellate Reversal
On November 26, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two, reversed and reinstated the lawsuit in Case No. A170385.2Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Organic Labeling Cases Are Added to the Supreme Court’s Docket Presiding Justice Therese M. Stewart, writing for the panel, held that COFFA covers all products marketed as organic in California.
She leaned on the statutory text. Health and Safety Code § 110880 applies the act to “all products sold as organic” in the state, and Stewart wrote that the plain meaning of “product” is “expansive enough to encompass — not exclude — personal care products.” The opinion also pointed to the 2002 overhaul of California’s organic law, when the Legislature deliberately replaced “food” and “foods” with “product” and “products” throughout the statute.1FindLaw. Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael, Inc.
The court observed that the Legislature wrote an express exemption into COFFA for cosmetics, which shows it knew how to carve out categories when it wanted to. No carveout exists for feminine hygiene or personal care. And even on the narrowest reading of the statute, Stewart wrote, cotton is itself an agricultural product, so items marketed as “organic cotton” would fall within the act regardless. The opinion added that it would make little sense to regulate pet food under COFFA while leaving products worn on or applied to the human body unregulated.2Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Organic Labeling Cases Are Added to the Supreme Court’s Docket
California Supreme Court Review
The California Supreme Court granted review in Case No. S294668 and framed the issue this way: “Does the California Organic Food and Farming Act apply to personal care products marketed as organic?”3Horvitz & Levy. Organic Labeling Cases Are Added to the Supreme Court’s Docket A ruling in EDP’s favor would let the suit proceed on the merits; a ruling for Rael would end it. The decision will also set the rule for every company selling products labeled “organic” in California.
The “Natural” Wipes Class Action
A separate federal case targets Rael’s wipes, not its pads. On January 3, 2023, California resident Sarah Blansette filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:23-cv-00006) over Rael’s Natural Feminine Wipes.4ClassAction.org. Blansette v. Rael, Inc. Complaint The complaint alleges the word “Natural” on the packaging, the plant-like logo, and website references to “natural and organic sources” led reasonable consumers to believe the wipes were free of synthetic chemicals.5ClassAction.org. Class Actions Claim Natural Hygiene Products Contain Multiple Synthetic Ingredients
According to the complaint, the wipes contain phenoxyethanol, polysorbate-20, sodium benzoate, citric acid, caprylyl glycol, ethylhexylglycerin, 1,2-hexanediol, and butylene glycol. Blansette argues consumers pay a premium for products they believe are all-natural and either would not have bought the wipes or would have paid less had they known. The suit brings claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief on behalf of nationwide, multi-state, and California classes.4ClassAction.org. Blansette v. Rael, Inc. Complaint
PFAS Testing and Rael’s Response
PFAS concerns about Rael pads have come up outside the courtroom. In a December 2022 investigation by Mamavation, partially funded by Environmental Health News, Rael Organic Cotton Cover Panty Liners were tested at an EPA-certified laboratory for fluorine, a marker for PFAS. The product registered 15 parts per million.6Environmental Health News. PFAS Sanitary Pads
Rael responded in a May 3, 2023 statement. The company said it does not intentionally add PFAS to its products or manufacturing processes and requires suppliers to confirm the same. It said it conducts regular third-party testing of random product lots, screens for organic fluorine as a PFAS marker, and releases products only after results come back “not detected.” Rael published results showing no detectable organic fluorine (below 20 ppm) and no detectable PFCs (below 1 ppm) in the products it tested. The company acknowledged PFAS are widely dispersed in the environment and may be unavoidably present somewhere in the supply chain.7Rael. Our Statement No pending lawsuit against Rael is based on PFAS.
What Is at Stake for Buyers of Rael Pads
Nothing in the current litigation claims Rael pads are unsafe. The organic cotton case is about labeling: whether a pad marketed as “organic cotton cover” can carry that language under California law when the finished product is largely made of synthetic components. If the California Supreme Court affirms the appellate ruling, Rael and other manufacturers would have to meet COFFA’s 95% or 70% content thresholds before using “organic” or “made with organic” on labels, or change the labels. If the court reverses, personal care products would sit outside COFFA entirely, and the EDP case ends. Either way, the ruling will apply well beyond pads.