Flushable Wipes Class Action Survives P&G Challenge

Proctor & Gamble Co. failed in its attempt to flush a proposed flushable wipes class action lawsuit, with a federal judge rejecting its challenge.

The main claim of the lawsuit is the flushable wipes are not flushable, and have allegedly been falsely marketed as such.

Flushable wipes are also called disposable wipes, adult wet wipes, or moist flushable wipes. Consumers say these wipes are not truly flushable, as flushing them causes indoor plumbing problems, septic tank issues and community plumbing and sewage issues.

Several individual and class action lawsuits have been brought  against the manufacturers of these products.

Proctor & Gamble argued in its request for dismissal that plaintiff David M. couldn’t show that he was likely to be harmed again by using the flushable wipes. The company said this caused him to lack standing in federal court.

David’s claims seeking injunctive relief were returned to the state court for consideration. He originally filed for injunctive relief for P & G’s alleged violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unfair competition, and false advertising laws.

The case was originally filed in the state court, and the judge said that injunctive relief is an important remedy under California’s consumer protection laws.

Judge James Donato further explained, “A California state court ought to decide whether injunctive relief is appropriate for plaintiff’s claims. Respect for comity and federalism compel that conclusion, and just tossing aside the state’s injunction remedy because of this court’s limited jurisdiction is an unwarranted federal intrusion into California’s interests and laws.”

According to legal counsel for the plaintiff, defendants try to get around false advertising case law by seeking to remove the cases from state courts to have them heard in federal courts. Once they are in federal court, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing and cannot seek injunctive relief because they are not likely to be deceived in the same way again.

The judge said there is a chance that the case could be stuck in a permanent loop of refilling, removal and dismissal, possibly preventing the plaintiff’s claims to be addressed before the statute of limitations expiration.

In the request for dismissal, Proctor & Gamble also said that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege injury-in-fact. P & G alleged he did not specifically claim he was not able to flush the wipes nor did he claim the wipes caused the clogged toilet.

The judge responded, “The court finds P & G’s argument to be based on a hyper-literal and nonsensical reading of the complaint, and rejects it on that basis.”

The Flushable Wipes Lawsuit is Case No. 3:14-cv-01982 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Flushable Wet Wipes Class Action Lawsuit Information

If you experienced a clogged toilet, pipes, sewer system or septic system as a result of using flushable wipes, you may be able to participate in a class action lawsuit. Our attorneys can assist you in determining your eligibility by reviewing your case during a complimentary consultation.

Join a Flushable Wipes Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you purchased one of the following flushable wet wipes, you may qualify to join a free class action lawsuit investigation:

• Babyganics® flushable wipes
• Charmin Freshmates
• CVS flushable wipes
• Equate® flushable wipes by Wal-Mart
• Kandoo® flushable wipes by Pampers
• up & up® flushable wipes by Target
• Walgreens flushable wipes
• Other flushable wipe products

Join Now