Cases / Current Cases

Procter & Gamble Consumer Class Action

Judge Certifies Class in Procter & Gamble Flushable Wipes Case

Wolf Popper has successfully moved to certify a class action against Procter & Gamble for mislabeling Charmin Freshmates wipes as “flushable” and “safe for sewers and septic systems.”  On March 27, 2017, a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York granted Wolf Popper’s motion to certify classes made up of all purchasers of Charmin Freshmates in the State of New York between May 3, 2011 and March 1, 2017.  In the 135-page opinion, the Honorable Judge Jack B. Weinstein found that all elements of class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) had been met, and certified a damages class entitling Wolf Popper to pursue statutory damages of up to $50 per transaction, and an injunctive class allowing Wolf Popper to seek the removal of the “flushable” and “safe for sewers and septic systems” misrepresentations from Charmin Freshmates’ label.  In his opinion, Judge Weinstein noted that Wolf Popper has “handled the case with great skill and full attention.”

Judge Will Certify Class in Procter & Gamble Flushable Wipes Case

A New York federal judge said he would certify a class action accusing Procter & Gamble of mislabeling as "flushable" bathroom wipes that do not degrade quickly enough to be described as flushable.  On February 3, 2017, U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein said he would issue an order in 30 days approving a class composed of New York consumers who stand to receive up to $50 per customer per purchase because of the state’s statutory damages for consumer fraud.  In addition to monetary damages, Lester Levy of Wolf Popper LLP, representing named plaintiff Anthony Belfiore, said he wanted the misrepresentations of “flushable” and “safe for sewers and septic systems” taken off the labels.

Wolf Popper Defeats Procter & Gamble’s Motion to Dismiss Consumer Class Action

Wolf Popper LLP has successfully defeated defendant Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss this consumer class action. This litigation, Belfiore v. The Procter & Gamble Co., 14-cv-4090 (E.D.N.Y.), arises from Procter & Gamble’s representations that its Charmin Freshmates flushable wipes products are “flushable” and “safe for sewer and septic systems.”  The plaintiff alleges that, contrary to Procter & Gamble’s representations, Freshmates do not break down sufficiently and, as a result, cause serious problems for septic tanks and household plumbing.  In successfully defeating Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss the class litigation, Wolf Popper LLP established new precedent in the Second Circuit enabling consumers to maintain standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of classes of similar consumers who were injured by purchasing deceptively marketed products.  As the Honorable Judge Jack B. Weinstein explained in his written opinion denying the motion to dismiss:  “To hold otherwise [on the issue of standing] would denigrate the New York consumer protection statute, designed as a major support of consumers who claim to have been cheated.”  2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39170, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2015).


Wolf Popper Files Consumer Class Action against Procter & Gamble on Behalf of Purchasers of Charmin Freshmates

Wolf Popper LLP has filed a consumer fraud class action on behalf of purchasers of Charmin Freshmates flushable wipes alleging that, contrary to the representations of manufacturer Procter & Gamble, Freshmates causes harm to plumbing and sewer systems.

The front of the Freshmates package boasts, in bold print, that Freshmates are “Flushable Wipes,” “Septic Safe,” and “Flushable,” and the back states that the product is “Safe for sewer and septic systems.”   In stark contrast to these representations, media reports, independent tests, consumer complaints, and Plaintiff’s personal experience demonstrate that Freshmates do not break down sufficiently, and they cause serious problems for septic tanks and household pipes for property owners and municipalities.

For further information about this case, please contact any of the following attorneys:

Lester L. Levy

Matthew Insley-Pruitt


Related Practice Area