The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action against The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) on July 7, 2025, concerning the labeling of its “Tampax Pure Cotton” tampons. The decision underscores the increasing scrutiny of false advertising claims premised on total organic fluorine (TOF) testing as a proxy for the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Our alert provides an overview of the case and its implications.
Background
Plaintiffs alleged that P&G’s product name, “Tampax Pure Cotton,” along with the representations “100% organic cotton,” and “The Best of Science and Nature” (collectively, the Pure and Organic Representations) were false and misleading. They claimed that independent laboratory testing detected TOF, a marker allegedly indicative of the intentional introduction of PFAS.
The court’s dismissal, without leave to amend, followed three unsuccessful attempts by plaintiffs to cure deficiencies related to their continued reliance on TOF as a proxy for PFAS to support their consumer protection claims. Because plaintiffs did not identify any specific PFAS and relied only on the alleged presence of TOF (or a general reference to PFAS), the court held it was not plausible that the products’ Pure and Organic Representations led consumers to believe the products did not contain any potentially harmful chemicals or artificial ingredients.
Court’s order: Dismissal with prejudice
The court dismissed the case with prejudice after determining, as in its prior orders, that the allegations regarding the presence of TOF could not be used to allege the presence of PFAS. This decision aligns with the increasing judicial scrutiny of consumer class action claims relying on TOF testing to purportedly demonstrate the presence of PFAS.
The court found the TOF testing insufficient for several reasons:
1. TOF testing cannot substitute for PFAS identification
The court emphasized that TOF testing does not identify or quantify specific PFAS compounds. As the plaintiff’s complaint did not contain any allegations about the testing process, the specific results obtained, or how those results supported the conclusion that PFAS were present in the products, the allegations were deemed insufficient to support an inference that the products contained PFAS. The court noted that plaintiffs’ testing results provided “no specificity as to the results reached or any other findings,” supporting an interpretation that those results were linked to PFAS.
This ruling is consistent with other district courts’ decisions related to PFAS presence, such as Dalewitz v. Procter & Gamble (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2023), which found TOF product testing unsubstantiated in the absence of detailed testing information and specific-harm related allegations.
2. Lack of contextual evidence
The court also noted there were no allegations addressing the origin of the detected TOF – particularly, whether the result of natural or synthetic sources, like PFAS. Further, the court noted that there was no discussion of other substances – such as non-organic ingredients and contaminants – that might support the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the testing results and the allegations.
3. Insufficient support for TOF detected above trace amounts
The plaintiffs stated that the amount of TOF detected was “above trace amounts and well within the detection limits.” However, the court found this assertion to be even less informative than the prior complaint’s allegation that testing detected levels of 30 parts per million TOF, which had been insufficient to plausibly allege PFAS at harmful levels.
Implications of the ruling
This ruling may serve as a reference point for companies marketing products as “pure,” “natural,” “clean,” or other similar representations. It also supports challenges to TOF-based and general contaminant testing allegations, particularly when based on vague or inconclusive testing.
Courts are increasingly scrutinizing both the scientific and legal sufficiency of these claims at the pleading stage, and robust, specific substantiation is critical for general or proxy testing methods, such as TOF analysis. The mere detection of a chemical marker, without context or evidence of risk, is unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss.
Learn more
DLA Piper’s PFAS Task Force closely tracks legislative and regulatory trends in the United States and internationally. We regularly assist businesses across industries in navigating the evolving PFAS regulatory landscape and designing efficient and effective compliance programs.
For more information, please contact the authors.