Carefree Lawsuit: PFAS Claims, Prop 65, and Dismissal

The Carefree lawsuit was a Proposition 65 enforcement action filed in September 2024 by an environmental group called Ecological Alliance LLC, which accused Edgewell Personal Care Brands of selling Carefree panty liners in California without warning consumers that the products contained a cancer-linked “forever chemical.” The case was dismissed without prejudice in January 2025 after the plaintiff failed to serve Edgewell, and as of mid-2026 no refiled complaint has appeared in available records.

What the Complaint Alleged

Ecological Alliance filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on September 30, 2024 (case number 24STCV25239), naming Edgewell Personal Care Brands LLC and discount retailer 99 Cents Only Stores LLC as defendants.¹ The group alleged that Carefree panty liners contain perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, and that Edgewell sold them in California without the cancer and reproductive-toxicity warnings Proposition 65 requires.

Testing commissioned by the plaintiff reportedly found PFOA leaching from Carefree pads at roughly 756 parts per trillion per hour.² The complaint asked the court to order Edgewell to remove PFAS from the products or add compliant warning labels, to halt sales until the liners were PFAS-free, and to impose civil penalties.¹ It also argued that PFOA can enter the bloodstream through contact with vaginal tissue, which the group said heightens the risk compared to ordinary skin exposure.

Ecological Alliance had sent Edgewell a formal 60-day intent-to-sue notice in February 2024, as Proposition 65 requires before a private party can bring an enforcement action. According to The Guardian, neither Edgewell nor any government agency responded, which cleared the way for the private suit.²

How the Case Ended

The lawsuit never moved past its earliest stage. In October 2024, the court set a January 16, 2025 hearing to address Ecological Alliance’s failure to file proof that Edgewell had been served. Before the hearing happened, the case was dismissed without prejudice on January 13, 2025.³ A dismissal without prejudice leaves Ecological Alliance free to file the same claims again, but no refiling has surfaced publicly.

Two other PFAS-related suits against Edgewell, Lowe v. Edgewell Personal Care Co. (3:23-cv-00834) and Mack v. Edgewell Personal Care Co. (3:23-cv-00837), were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on March 10, 2025, meaning those plaintiffs permanently gave up their claims.⁴

Edgewell has not publicly addressed the allegations. The company did not reply to media requests for comment when the lawsuit was filed, and no statement about PFAS in Carefree products, or any reformulation commitment, has appeared in its filings or press materials.²

Why Proposition 65 Was the Legal Hook

California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, known as Proposition 65, requires businesses to warn consumers before exposing them to chemicals the state has identified as causing cancer or reproductive harm. PFOA was listed as a reproductive toxicant in 2017 and as a known carcinogen effective February 25, 2022.⁵

One feature of PFOA enforcement makes suits like this one easier to bring. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has not set a “No Significant Risk Level” for PFOA, the safe-harbor threshold below which a company can sell a product without a warning. With no such number in place, any detectable PFOA can potentially trigger the warning requirement, and the burden shifts to the company to show its product does not pose a significant risk.⁵

Proposition 65 also lets private parties sue when government agencies decline to act, with plaintiff attorneys typically recovering fees from the defendant or through settlement. That private enforcement structure is what allowed Ecological Alliance to bring the case in the first place.

California’s New PFAS Ban Took Effect Alongside the Suit

On the same day the Carefree lawsuit was filed, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2515, known as the T.A.M.P.O.N. Act, banning PFAS in menstrual products sold in California. The ban on intentionally added PFAS took effect January 1, 2025.⁶ Several further deadlines follow:

By January 1, 2027, PFAS concentrations above a limit set by the Department of Toxic Substances Control will be prohibited, and DTSC must publish approved testing methods.
By January 1, 2029, DTSC must adopt full enforcement regulations.
By July 1, 2029, manufacturers must register their menstrual products with DTSC and certify compliance.⁷

As of early 2026, DTSC had not yet published the required testing methods, and the agency’s own legislative mandates report described AB 2515 as an “unfunded mandate,” which suggests implementation resources remain uncertain.⁷

Consumer Reports Filed Separately With the FDA

Two adverse event reports naming Carefree panty liners appear in the FDA’s MAUDE database. In August 2024, a 70-year-old woman with an ovarian cancer diagnosis reported her belief that “forever chemicals” in the product were carcinogenic. Edgewell investigated and said its trend analysis “did not reveal any trends” and found “no issues requiring corrective action.”⁸ A second report from early 2025 described a consumer who had skin irritation severe enough to require a two-week hospitalization; the manufacturer did not evaluate the device in that case.⁹ MAUDE entries reflect consumer complaints and do not establish causation.

Where Carefree Sits in the Broader Industry Litigation

The Carefree case is one piece of a wider wave of PFAS and heavy-metal litigation targeting feminine care brands. Class actions filed between 2020 and 2022 against period underwear maker Thinx led to a $5 million settlement in 2023 in which Thinx agreed to ensure PFAS are not intentionally added to its products, though the company denied wrongdoing.¹⁰ Procter & Gamble has faced a class action over alleged lead contamination in Tampax tampons, and Kimberly-Clark has been sued over lead levels in Kotex products under Proposition 65.¹¹

Health concerns driving these suits center on the EPA’s findings that PFAS exposure is associated with decreased fertility, certain cancers, developmental effects in children, endocrine disruption, elevated cholesterol, and reduced immune function.¹⁰ PFAS are a group of more than 12,000 synthetic chemicals that resist breakdown and accumulate in blood and organs over time.¹²

What Happens to the Carefree Brand Next

In November 2025, Edgewell’s board approved a deal to sell its entire feminine care segment, which includes Carefree, Stayfree, Playtex, and o.b., for $340 million. The transaction was expected to close in early 2026.¹³ If the sale completes as planned, Carefree will move to a new corporate parent, and any future PFAS litigation or compliance obligations under California’s new law would follow the brand to its new owner.

1
California Department of Justice. Ecological Alliance LLC v. Edgewell Personal Care Brands LLC, AG No. 2024-00563
2
The Guardian. Toxic PFAS Found in Carefree Menstrual Pads
3
Bloomberg Law. Environment Group Drops Carefree Menstrual Liner PFAS Suit
4
Thompson Coburn LLP. PFAS Primer Update Recent Developments Consumer Fraud Analysis
5
Packaging Law. CA Requests Data on Bisphenol S, Lists PFOA as Carcinogen Under Prop 65
6
Office of Assemblymember Diane Papan. Papan Legislation to Safeguard Womens Health Signed by Governor Newsom
7
California DTSC. Legislative Mandates Report 2023-2024
8
FDA. MAUDE Adverse Event Report 20107753
9
FDA. MAUDE Adverse Event Report 21583863
10
TIME. PFAS Period Chemicals Underwear Tampons
11
Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law School. Legal Responses to the Potential Dangers of Menstrual Products
12
Environmental Working Group. New Research PFAS Detected in Some Menstrual and Incontinence Products
13
Edgewell Personal Care. 2025 Form 10-K