A New York woman says Pampers Natural Clean baby wipes actually contain synthetic ingredients, rendering their โnaturalโ labeling false and misleading.
Plaintiff Tyoka Brumfield says defendant Procter & Gamble Co. falsely represents that some of its baby wipes products are โnaturalโ when in fact they use ingredients that most consumers would consider non-natural.
She accuses the defendant of misleading consumers into paying a premium for a product they might not have bought at all otherwise.
โThere is nothing comparatively natural about the Wipes,โ Brumfield claims. โThey contain substantially the same ingredients as Defendantโs non-natural wipe offerings.โ
Therefore, Brumfield argues, the only reason a consumer would choose Pampers Natural Clean baby wipes over similar products is because of the defendantโs representation that the product is โnatural.โ
According to this Pampers class action lawsuit, the baby wipes at issue are made with several ingredients that canโt reasonably be considered natural and that may even be dangerous. Brumfield says these baby wipes contain disodium EDTA, sorbitan caprylate, xanthan gum, and other allegedly non-natural ingredients.
Until the end of 2015, she claims, Pampers Natural Clean wipes also contained phenoxyethanol, which according to the U.S Food and Drug Administration can โdepress the central nervous system and may cause vomiting and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration in infants.โ
She quotes a report by French health regulators that states phenoxyethanol should be avoided in products intended for use on infants and children under the age of three, due to a risk of reproductive and developmental toxicity.
Brumfield says Procter & Gamble knew about these reports, yet continued to put phenoxyethanol in its Pampers Natural Clean wipes anyway.
Brumfield says she has made numerous purchases of Pampers Natural Clean baby wipes from retailers in Manhattan and Brooklyn between late 2014 and early 2017. She says she understood the phrase โNatural Cleanโ to mean that the wipes contained no synthetic chemicals, and certainly no chemicals that could harm her child.
Had she known that the labelโs representation was false, she claims, she would not have purchased Pampers Natural Clean baby wipes. Her Pampers class action lawsuit raises claims of false advertising and deceptive business practices under the New York General Business Law.
Brumfield is proposing to represent a plaintiff Class covering all persons who purchased Pampers Natural Clean wipes in the state of New York.
She is asking the court to certify her proposed Class and to appoint her as class representative and her attorneys as class counsel. She seeks an award of compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution and other forms of equitable relief, and reimbursement of court costs and attorney fees, all with pre- and post-judgment interest.
Brumfield is represented by attorneys Yitzchak Kopel, Scott A. Bursor, Joseph I. Marchese, Neal J. Deckant, and Frederick J. Klorczyk III of Bursor & Fisher PA.
The Pampers Natural Clean Wipes Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuit is Brumfield v. Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 1:17-cv-08095, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 โ 2025 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
336 thoughts onPampers Class Action Says ‘Natural Clean’ Wipes Aren’t Natural
Add me
Add me please
I have spent THOUSANDS of dollars on this product!
Please email or contact me with the process of the filing process!
I bought these and was also disappointed , my child has allergies. Add me.
Add me please?
Add me
Add me Please
Yes indeed add me because Iโm very sensitive below so I use wipes and my daughter 20 yr old and we both had to stop due to burning , itching , and breaking out after use
Requesting to be added, please and thank you!