Federal Court Dismisses False Advertising Case Against P&G Over TOF Testing

On July 7, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a class action lawsuit against The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), centering on the labeling of its "Tampax Pure Cotton" tampons. This ruling reflects an increasing judicial skepticism regarding the use of total organic fluorine (TOF) testing as a reliable proxy for identifying per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products.

The plaintiffs in the case alleged that P&G's product labeling, which included claims such as "100% organic cotton" and "The Best of Science and Nature," was misleading. They argued that independent laboratory tests indicated the presence of TOF, a chemical marker they claimed signified the intentional inclusion of PFAS in the products. However, the court found the plaintiffs’ reliance on TOF testing to be fundamentally flawed, leading to the dismissal of the case with prejudice.

The court's decision pointed out several critical deficiencies in the plaintiffs' arguments. Firstly, it stated that TOF testing does not specifically identify or quantify PFAS compounds. As stated in the court’s opinion, "the allegations regarding the presence of TOF could not be used to allege the presence of PFAS," because no specific PFAS was mentioned in the lawsuit. This ruling is consistent with precedents, including the case of Dalewitz v. Procter & Gamble (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2023), which similarly deemed TOF testing unsubstantiated in the absence of detailed testing data.

Additionally, the court noted the absence of contextual evidence regarding the origin of the detected TOF, questioning whether it stemmed from natural or synthetic sources, including PFAS. The ruling emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to account for other substances, such as non-organic ingredients, which might explain the TOF results.

The court also criticized the plaintiffs' claim that the amount of TOF detected was "above trace amounts and well within the detection limits," stating that such claims did not provide sufficient information to substantiate the allegations of harmful PFAS levels.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond P&G, serving as a precedent for other companies marketing products with similar claims of being "pure," "natural," or "clean." This case reflects a broader trend of increased judicial scrutiny on consumer class action claims that rely on vague or inconclusive testing methods, particularly those based on TOF analysis. As courts demand more robust evidence for general or proxy testing methods, the mere detection of a chemical marker without contextual support is unlikely to withstand legal challenges.

As the regulatory landscape surrounding PFAS continues to evolve, legal experts suggest that companies must adapt their marketing strategies to ensure compliance with stringent standards and to avoid potential litigation. Organizations must prioritize clear, substantiated claims that withstand judicial scrutiny. The ruling underscores the need for rigorous scientific testing methods and comprehensive evidence in consumer protection claims involving chemical exposure.

In summary, the dismissal of the case against P&G signals a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over TOF testing as a proxy for PFAS in consumer products. The legal landscape is likely to continue evolving as more consumers and advocacy groups challenge product labeling practices, and courts refine their criteria for evaluating such claims. Companies operating in this space are advised to consult legal experts to navigate the complexities of the PFAS regulatory environment effectively.