Outcome: $2,150,000 Settlement
Jamie Pettit, et al. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., Case No.: 3:15-cv-02150-RS in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
The class action lawsuit filed by Jamie Pettit against The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) alleged that P&G falsely marketed Charmin Freshmates Flushable Wipes as “flushable,” “septic safe,” and “safe for sewer and septic systems,” when in reality, these wipes were unsuitable for flushing. Pettit’s complaint asserted that these wipes often failed to disperse upon flushing, leading to blockages and damage in plumbing, septic systems, and municipal sewage operations. TZ and two other prominent consumer advocacy law firms were designated as settlement class counsel. P&G denied all allegations.
Settlement Class
The settlement includes U.S. individuals who purchased Charmin Freshmates Flushable Wipes or similar pre-moistened wipes under the Charmin brand labeled as “flushable” between April 6, 2011, and November 26, 2018.
Settlement Agreement
- P&G agreed to modify its product labeling and adopt more stringent testing protocols in line with current industry standards.
- P&G will compensate eligible customers with a partial cash refund. Claimants without proof of purchase can receive $0.70 per package up to $6.30 per household, and those with proof can claim $1.20 for the first package and $1.00 for additional ones, up to $50.20 per household.
Impact
The settlement is significant as it compelled P&G to change their product practices. The financial reimbursement serves as compensation to consumers who were potentially misled, and it underlines the importance of corporate accountability. The Honorable Richard Seeborg wrote about the result: “The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel represented their clients with skill and diligence and obtained an excellent result for the class, taking into account the possible outcomes at, and risks of proceeding to, trial.” Pettit v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 3:15-cv-02150-RS, ECF No. 135, at 9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019). This case reinforces the critical role that class action lawsuits play in consumer protection and the obligation of companies to ensure truthful marketing and product information.