Huggies Simply Clean Fragrance Free Baby Wipes
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing products as clean, gentle, safe, hypoallergenic, and plant-based
May 2017: After this case went to trial, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff class and against the companies finding that plaintiffs presented enough evidence to prove that the companies failed to disclose, or actively concealed, important information about the MicroCool medical gowns, and that reasonable consumers were likely to be deceived. The Court ordered Kimberly-Clark to pay more than $3.8 million to the class, just over $1 million in prejudgment interest, and $350 million in punitive damages, and ordered Halyard Health to pay more than $260,000 to the class, more than $43,000 in prejudgment interest, and $100 million in punitive damages. The plaintiffs’ request for restitution and injunctive relief was denied.
March 2016: The individual claims of one of the named plaintiff’s (Shahinian) were voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.. The claims of the remaining plaintiffs will move forward.
December 2015: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding several named plaintiffs and an additional defendant (Halyard Health, Inc.). The amended complaint similarly alleges that the companies misleadingly market medical gowns as providing the highest level of liquid barrier protection and safe to use when treating patients with serious diseases when, according to plaintiffs, the gowns do not meet relevant industry standards and, as a result, are unsafe.
October 2014: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Kimberly-Clark Corporation for allegedly marketing the MICROCOOL* Breathable High Performance Surgical Gowns. Among other things, plaintiffs claim that the company falsely represents the gowns as providing the highest level of liquid barrier protection and safe to wear while treating patients with serious diseases such as Ebola when, accordng to the complaint, the gowns do not meet the relevant standards for liquid barrier protection and are unsafe. (Shahinian, M.D., F.A.C.S., et al v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case No. 14-cv-8390, C. D. CA.).
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing products as clean, gentle, safe, hypoallergenic, and plant-based
Allegations: Products contain less toilet paper than represented on the front labels
Allegations: Failing to disclose that products contain lead
Allegations: Deceptively marketing diapers as safe when they contain a skin irritant
Allegations: Falsely marketing wipes as “plant-based”
Allegations: Falsely marketing Kleenex Germ Removal Wet Wipes
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing wipes as “flushable”
Allegations: Deceptively marketing wipes as “flushable”
Allegations: Misleadingly advertising diapers as safe and gentle without disclosing that they may cause rashes, blistering, peeling, and chemical burns
November 2018: This action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclosed. November 2017: The Mattocks…
November 2018: The case was dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled. because the parties reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which have not…
In August 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Kimberly-Clark for allegedly misleadingly marketing Huggies Snug & Dry Diapers® as being safe for infants when, according to plaintiffs, the diapers…
February 2018: This case was consolidated with Sebastian v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. and administratively closed because the Sebastian case was named the lead case. Click here to learn more about the…
In December 2017, a class-action lawsuit was filed against several manufacturers of flushable wipes – specifically, Costco, CVS, Kimberly-Clark, Procter & Gamble, Target, Walgreens, and Walmart – for allegedly falsely…
October 2017: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal finding that the complaint adequately stated a claim. The appellate court also found that the named plaintiff…
May 2016: This action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled. as to the named plaintiffs’ claims and When a complaint is dismissed…
April 2015: The named plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclosed. July 2013:…
April 2016: This action was dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled. because the parties reached a settlement agreement. The terms of the agreement have…
Five class-action settlements that left consumers behind in 2022.
NAD recommends changes after Pampers makes a stink over competing diaper brand’s ad claims.
You can’t always *depend* on the picture on the packaging.
False and deceptive made in USA representations prompts action.
Class-action lawsuit alleges company misled the health care industry.