On July 1, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a final judgment in favor of Procter & Gamble Co., bringing an end to a putative class action alleging that the company falsely advertised its Tampax tampons as "pure cotton." The court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs had not corrected the fundamental deficiencies prior iterations of its complaint—even after multiple rounds of amendment.
The Plaintiffs' Claims
Plaintiffs alleged that P&G's representation that its tampons are comprised of "pure cotton" was deceptive because product testing had allegedly detected Total Organic Fluorine (TOF)—which plaintiffs claimed indicated the presence of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). They asserted violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
The Court's Ruling
In dismissing the Third Amended Complaint, the court focused on two primary deficiencies:
TOF Testing Does Not Establish PFAS Presence. The plaintiffs relied solely on TOF testing results to support their claim that PFAS were present in the tampons. The court concluded that this methodology, while detecting fluorine generally, did not identify or quantify specific PFAS compounds, and thus failed to plausibly allege the presence of PFAS in the product.
No Allegation of Harmful Levels. Even accepting the presence of fluorine, the court noted that plaintiffs merely alleged that the testing detected "above trace amounts ... well within the detection limits." This was deemed insufficient to allege that chemicals were detected at a level potentially harmful to plaintiffs.
The court also denied further leave to amend, holding that the plaintiffs had already been given multiple opportunities to state a claim and had failed to do so.
What This Means for Advertisers
The ruling adds to a growing body of case law rejecting false advertising claims based on the alleged presence of trace chemicals, particularly where plaintiffs rely on inconclusive testing methods or fail to demonstrate that substances are allegedly present at harmful levels.
Key takeaways:
Scientific substantiation must be specific. Courts are requiring more than general or proxy testing (like TOF) to support claims involving chemical content. Identifying specific compounds—and tying them to consumer deception—is critical.
Contextual labeling analysis still applies. Although the court did not reach the broader issue of whether "pure cotton" was misleading to reasonable consumers, the ruling reinforces that courts are unlikely to infer deception based on technical allegations untethered to consumer understanding or safety concerns.
Bottom Line
For advertisers using terms like "pure," "natural," or "clean," this case reinforces that trace findings of chemicals in a product may not be enough to survive a motion to dismiss. Courts are scrutinizing the scientific and legal sufficiency of these claims early in the proceedings.
If your business is developing environmental marketing claims, facing PFAS-related litigation, or navigating advertising risk in the face of evolving regulatory standards, Frankfurt Kurnit's Advertising, Marketing & Public Relations Group can help you assess your exposure and design compliant, defensible messaging strategies.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
