Charmin Freshmates Flushable Wipes Class Action Settlement
You are a member of the Settlement Class if, between April 6, 2011 and November 26, 2018, you purchased the Product anywhere in the United states, other than in the State of New York. Your purchase cannot have been for purpose of resale.
Proof of Purchase
Pettit v. Procter & Gamble Co.,Case No. 3:15-cv-02150, District Court for the Northern District of California
In one lawsuit (Pettit v. Procter & Gamble Company), the Plaintiff asserts that, although the packaging on the Freshmates wipes states that the wipes are “flushable,” “septic safe,” and “safe for sewer and septic systems,” the wipes are not suitable for disposal by flushing down a toilet, are not regarded as flushable by municipal sewage system operators, do not disperse upon flushing, and routinely damage or clog plumbing pipes, septic systems, and sewage lines and pumps. Plaintiff alleges that P&G is liable for: (a) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code §1750 et seq., (b) false advertising in violation of California Business and Professions Code §17500 et seq., (c) fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, (d) negligent misrepresentation, and (e) unfair, unlawful and deceptive trade practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq. In the second lawsuit (Ramcharitar v. Procter & Gamble Company), the Plaintiffs make similar allegations regarding the Freshmates wipe and allege that P&G is liable for: (a) breach of express warranty, (b) negligent design, (c) negligent misrepresentation, (d) failure to warn, (e) violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statutes §501.201 et seq., (f) unjust enrichment, (g) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §2301 et seq., (h) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, §805 Ill. Comp. Stat. §505 (2007), (i) tortious breach of warranty, and (j) fraud. Plaintiffs seek to pursue their claims on behalf of themselves and others who purchased the Product in the United States, except for purchases in New York.
P&G denies that there is any factual or legal basis for Plaintiffs’ allegations. P&G contends that the labeling of the Product was truthful and non-misleading. P&G therefore denies any liability. P&G also denies that Plaintiff or any other members of the Settlement Class have suffered injury or are entitled to monetary or other relief.