Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) - A new lawsuit accuses Procter & Gamble Co of deceiving Charmin buyers with misleading environmental claims about the origin of its toilet paper, known as "greenwashing."

In a proposed class action lawsuit on Thursday, eight consumers said P&G obtained much of Charmin's wood pulp from Canada's boreal forest, one of the world's most important biological ecosystems, through harmful logging practices such as clearcutting and burning. .

Consumers said the sourcing was "completely contrary" to P&G's public commitment to protecting the environment, including its "Protect Like a Forest" campaign and the "Protect-Grown-Restore" logo on Charmin packaging.

The lawsuit also claims that the Forest Stewardship Council and Rainforest Alliance's logo displays are misleading because P&G rarely uses pulp from FSC-certified forests and the Rainforest Alliance no longer has a certification program.

The lawsuit alleges that P&G's marketing deceived consumers into purchasing or paying too much and violated the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guidelines, which help companies avoid deceptive environmental claims.

The company must be held accountable for its "serious environmental damage to the world's largest intact forest and stop hiding behind its false and misleading environmental stewardship claims." the complaint states.

P&G did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Seattle, seeking damages, compensatory damages and punitive damages for violations of consumer protection laws in 28 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.

It also seeks to prevent P&G from making misleading environmental claims.

Last month, the Cincinnati-based company pledged to reveal more details about how it audits wood pulp suppliers by mid-2025, following years of shareholder pressure to source forest products more sustainably.

P&G said it limits disclosure of some information about its supply chain for competitive reasons.

The title of the case misspells Procter & Gamble Co., Lowry et al v Proctor & Gamble Co, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 25-00108.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Chizu Noyama)