Poison in the Wipes
Kimberly-Clark Sold “Gentle” Baby Wipes Loaded With Forever Chemicals
Filed: October 7, 2024 · Case No. 3:24-cv-07032-AMO · U.S. District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaWhat Parents Trusted. What They Didn’t Know.
You are standing in the baby aisle at Safeway. You are tired. You are trying to do right by your kid. You pick up the Huggies Simply Clean wipes because the packaging tells you exactly what you want to hear: “simply clean.” “Gentle ingredients.” “Hypoallergenic.” “Dermatologically tested.” On the back, in a red box, Kimberly-Clark even highlights what the product does not contain — no alcohol, no parabens. This is the brand’s way of signaling: we know what parents are afraid of, and we have removed those things. You believe them. You take the wipes home. You use them on your newborn’s skin approximately 30 times a day.
What Kimberly-Clark did not tell you is that independent testing found 305 parts per trillion of PFAS chemicals inside those wipes. PFAS are synthetic industrial compounds that have been manufactured since the 1940s, used in nonstick cookware, firefighting foam, and stain-resistant fabric. They are called “forever chemicals” because the human body cannot break them down. They build up. They stay. The science on what they do inside a body — especially a small, developing body — is not ambiguous. The research connects them to cancer, liver damage, thyroid disease, immune suppression, decreased fertility, and, specifically in children, a reduced antibody response to vaccines. Vaccines that are supposed to protect your child. Made less effective by a chemical on the wipe you used to clean them.
A newborn’s skin is not a barrier in the way an adult’s is. It is thinner. It is more permeable. Chemicals cross it more easily. And the skin in the diaper area — where parents use wipes most frequently — is thinner still. For baby girls, the exposure risk deepens further. The vaginal and vulvar tissue is highly vascular, meaning it is full of blood vessels and lymphatic vessels. Research cited in the complaint explains that chemicals absorbed through that tissue enter the bloodstream directly, bypassing the liver’s first-pass metabolism — the body’s usual filtering step. There is no processing delay. The chemical goes straight into circulation. A drug administered vaginally reaches higher blood serum levels than the same drug taken orally. The same principle applies to toxins.
Plaintiff Bridget Erickson bought the product in April 2024, from a Safeway in Ukiah, California. She reviewed the packaging. She read the claims. She made a decision based on what a major corporation told her about its own product. That is not naivety. That is how consumer markets are supposed to work. Kimberly-Clark is headquartered in Irving, Texas. It has the laboratories, the chemists, the regulatory teams, and the supply chain data to know what is in its product. The complaint alleges the company had exclusive and superior knowledge of the product’s true composition. The company chose to advertise “gentle ingredients.” It listed ingredients it had excluded. It never mentioned PFAS.
The company was sent a formal legal notice on April 22, 2024 — six months before this article was published. It had the opportunity to acknowledge the problem. To pull the product, reformat the labeling, offer refunds. It did not. The lawsuit was filed anyway. Somewhere between that notice letter and the filing date, parents kept buying the wipes. Babies kept being wiped with them. The quiet accumulation continued.
What the Complaint Actually Says
These are verbatim statements from the filed court complaint, Case No. 3:24-cv-07032-AMO. Each quote is followed by a breakdown of what it establishes legally and factually.
“Independent testing conducted by Plaintiff’s counsel, utilizing a Department of Defense ELAP-certified laboratory, revealed that the Product contains 305 parts of trillion (PPT) of dangerous PFAS chemicals.”
- This is not a consumer complaint or a suspicion. It is a certified laboratory finding. ELAP (Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program) certification under DoD standards is among the most rigorous testing credentials available in the United States.
- 305 parts per trillion is the measured figure. PFAS are characterized in scientific literature as “extremely toxic at doses as low as parts per trillion or quadrillion,” meaning this reading is within a range scientists consider dangerous.
“PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals known to be harmful to children. Because PFAS persist and accumulate over time, they are harmful even at very low levels. Indeed, laboratory studies have shown a number of PFAS-linked toxicological effects and have been associated with thyroid disorders, immunotoxic effects, and various cancers.”
- The phrase “harmful even at very low levels” is critical: it legally undercuts any future defense argument that the amount detected is too small to matter. The accumulative nature of PFAS means each exposure adds to total body burden.
- The complaint cites the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the National Toxicology Program — not advocacy groups, but federal and medical institutions — to establish these health links.
“The back of the Product packaging includes claims in another conspicuous red text box that the Product is ‘Hypoallergenic,’ ‘Dermatologically Tested,’ ‘Alcohol Free,’ and ‘Paraben Free.’ These claims are followed by a list of the purported contents of the Product, described by Defendant as ‘Gentle ingredients.’ Nowhere on this list of ‘gentle ingredients,’ is listed any compound of PFAS or risk that the Product may contain them.”
- By affirmatively listing specific chemicals that were excluded (alcohol, parabens), Kimberly-Clark created an implied representation that the product was free of other similar harmful chemicals. The complaint argues this creates an expectation of full disclosure in the consumer’s mind.
- Parabens and PFAS are regularly grouped together in public health and consumer safety discourse as co-equal chemical classes to avoid. By advertising “paraben-free” while concealing PFAS presence, the company exploited the exact framework parents use to evaluate product safety.
“Defendant claims that consumers’ ‘baby’s skin is [its] priority. That’s why [it] carefully select[s] each ingredient that goes into’ the Product. Notably missing from this list is the mention of PFAS or PFAS-compounds.”
- This statement by Kimberly-Clark on its own website creates an affirmative duty to disclose. Once a company represents that it “carefully selects” every ingredient, the omission of a detected toxic compound becomes a legally material omission.
- The complaint argues this constitutes fraud by omission: the company had superior knowledge of the product’s contents, made representations about those contents, and withheld information consumers would have considered decisive in their purchasing decision.
“The skin in the area around a baby’s genitals is even thinner and more susceptible to exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. For girls, the presence of PFAS in products coming in contact with vaginal tissue adds further concern… ‘The walls of the vagina are filled with numerous blood vessels and lymphatic vessels, which allow for direct transfer of chemicals into the circulatory system.'”
- This establishes why diaper-area application is categorically more dangerous than, for example, using the wipe on hands or face. The biological pathway for chemical absorption is faster and more direct in this tissue type.
- The quote is attributed to expert Alexandra Scranton and is drawn from a peer-reviewed analysis of feminine care product chemical exposure. Its inclusion in the complaint signals that plaintiffs have expert witness support for the biological harm pathway.
“Defendant’s conduct here was, and continues to be, fraudulent because it omitted and concealed that the Product contains—or risks containing—high levels of PFAS, which are widely known to have significant health repercussions. Thus, Defendant’s conduct deceived Plaintiff and the members of the Classes into believing that the Product was safe for use on babies and infants due to its ‘simply clean,’ ‘plant-based,’ and ‘gentle ingredients,’ despite the inclusion (or risk of) harmful chemicals. Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that this information is material to reasonable consumers.”
- The phrase “knew, or reasonably should have known” is the standard for corporate fraud liability. It does not require proof that an executive made a deliberate decision to hide PFAS — it requires only that the information was available to the company and that a reasonable company in its position would have disclosed it.
- The complaint identifies Kimberly-Clark as the manufacturer, designer, marketer, and seller of the product — establishing that the company occupied every role in the supply chain, making the “we didn’t know” defense extremely difficult to sustain.
“Plaintiff and Class Members bargained for a product that is ‘simply clean,’ that is nontoxic, that does not pose a risk to their young children… Plaintiff and the Class Members were thus deprived of the basis of their bargain when Defendant sold them a Product — intended to be used daily on babies — that contained, or risked containing, high levels of toxic PFAS chemicals.” — Complaint ¶ 31
PFAS Contamination in Context: 305 PPT Visualized
The Full Scope of Harm
Environmental Degradation
- PFAS chemicals do not break down in the environment. They have been found in water supplies, soil, and wildlife globally. Every product containing PFAS that is manufactured, used, and disposed of adds to this permanent environmental contamination.
- The EPA’s first-ever national drinking water standard for PFAS, announced in April 2024, acknowledges the scale of environmental contamination: the federal government projected it would “protect 100 million people from PFAS exposure” — a figure that communicates how widely these chemicals have already spread through water infrastructure.
- Manufacturing and disposal of PFAS-containing consumer products contributes to the contamination of waterways and ecosystems. Long-chain PFAS variants — now banned in the EU and phased out by major U.S. manufacturers — were removed precisely because of documented environmental persistence, but short-chain variants carry comparable toxicity levels according to the U.S. National Toxicology Program.
Public Health
- The CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry documents PFAS exposure as linked to liver damage, decreased fertility, and increased asthma risk in the general population.
- Research connected to the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences links PFAS to cancer, immune suppression, and thyroid disease. Former NIEHS Director Dr. Lina Birnbaum specifically noted PFAS can weaken immune defenses, increasing vulnerability to infectious diseases.
- In children specifically, PFAS exposure has been linked to lower antibody responses to vaccines — meaning a child’s immunizations may be less effective because of accumulated PFAS exposure, a harm that compounds silently over years of use before any symptom appears.
- Children are documented by the American Academy of Pediatrics as more vulnerable to PFAS than adults due to lower body weight, different metabolic rates, developing organ systems, and longer lifespans over which effects can accumulate and manifest.
- Skin exposure to PFAS has been shown in rodent studies to produce “significantly reduced levels of antibodies,” confirming that dermal (skin-based) absorption — the exact route of exposure from a baby wipe — is sufficient to cause immunological harm at low levels.
Economic Inequality
- Huggies is a mass-market brand. It is sold at Walmart, Amazon, Safeway, and discount retailers. The families most likely to buy it are working-class and middle-income parents who cannot afford premium specialty products advertised as certified non-toxic. The burden of this deception falls hardest on people with the least margin for error.
- The complaint notes that plaintiffs paid a price premium because the product was labeled as safe and made with clean ingredients. Those families paid more — trusting a claim — and received a product that lab testing shows contained a dangerous synthetic chemical. They cannot easily recoup that loss without a class action lawsuit.
- Pursuing individual legal action against Kimberly-Clark, a corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas with national distribution, is economically impossible for most individual consumers. The class action mechanism exists specifically because corporate wrongdoing at scale requires collective legal power to counter — individual families have no other viable path to accountability.
“Children are more vulnerable to environmental pollutants like PFAS than adults because of… lower body weight, differences in water and food intake, developing organ systems and longer lifespans during which toxic effects might manifest.” — American Academy of Pediatrics, cited in Complaint ¶ 24
What Kimberly-Clark Chose
No settlement figure exists yet. The lawsuit was filed in October 2024. What we can document is what the company chose to do with full knowledge of the science, and what that choice was worth to them in continued revenue.
The minimum aggregate claim value asserted by the lawsuit — the floor amount required to establish federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). This figure represents the estimated collective economic injury to the class of purchasers across the United States.
The complaint was sent to Kimberly-Clark via certified mail on April 22, 2024. The company had at minimum 168 days before the lawsuit was filed to pull the product, update labeling, or offer restitution. It did none of those things. During that window, Huggies wipes continued to be sold at Walmart, Amazon, Safeway, and across the country — with the same “simply clean” and “gentle ingredients” claims on the packaging.
PFAS concentration found in the tested product. The EPA’s new enforceable national drinking water standard for PFOA — one of the most common PFAS compounds — is set at 4 parts per trillion. The level found in Huggies Simply Clean is 76 times that threshold. Drinking water at this level would trigger federal remediation orders. This product is wiped on infant skin up to 30 times a day.
The product is advertised as appropriate for “everyday use” on babies’ hands, face, and bottom. That means the 76× exceedance figure applies to daily, repeated, direct application to the most permeable skin on a human body.
Who Is Accountable and What You Can Do
Kimberly-Clark Corporation is the named defendant. The following are the corporate roles identified in the complaint; no individual executive names appear in the source document.
- Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Irving, Texas: manufacturer, marketer, seller, and distributor of Huggies Simply Clean Fragrance Free Baby Wipes across the United States.
- The complaint identifies the company as occupying every link in the product’s chain — design, formulation, manufacturing, advertising, and sales — meaning no third-party supplier defense is easily available.
- The lawsuit is filed on behalf of a nationwide class (all U.S. purchasers) and a California subclass, meaning if you bought this product anywhere in the country during the statute of limitations period, you may be a class member.
- EPA (Environmental Protection Agency): The agency issued the first-ever national drinking water PFAS standards in April 2024. It holds authority over PFAS regulation in consumer products and environmental contamination. File a complaint or monitor enforcement actions at epa.gov/pfas.
- FDA (Food and Drug Administration): Regulates chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products including baby wipes. The FDA has authority to require disclosure or restrict harmful substances in topical consumer products. Contact via fda.gov/cosmetics.
- FTC (Federal Trade Commission): Has authority over deceptive advertising and false labeling claims. A product marketed as “simply clean” and “gentle ingredients” while containing detected PFAS may constitute deceptive trade practices under the FTC Act. File a report at reportfraud.ftc.gov.
- CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission): Has jurisdiction over product safety hazards in consumer goods, including those marketed for infant use. You can report unsafe products directly at saferproducts.gov.
- California Attorney General: The state’s Consumer Protection Section enforces the CLRA, UCL, and FAL — the exact statutes cited in this lawsuit. If Kimberly-Clark does not settle or remedy the situation, state enforcement is an additional pressure point. Contact via oag.ca.gov.
Mutual Aid, Local Organizing, and Direct Action
- If you purchased Huggies Simply Clean Fragrance Free Baby Wipes, document your purchase with receipts, packaging photographs, and purchase dates. You may be eligible to join the class action. Contact Bursor & Fisher, P.A. at ltfisher@bursor.com or visit ClassAction.org to track the case (Case No. 3:24-cv-07032-AMO).
- Share the lab results with other parents in your community, school groups, pediatric waiting rooms, and neighborhood apps. The 305 PPT finding is a documented, certified fact. This is the information Kimberly-Clark chose not to put on the label. Put it in front of people who are still buying this product.
- Demand your pediatrician be informed. Ask them to advise patients on PFAS risks in baby care products. Medical professionals are an under-utilized channel for consumer safety information that bypasses corporate marketing entirely.
- Support environmental health organizations doing PFAS policy work, including Toxic-Free Future, Environmental Working Group, and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families — all cited in the complaint’s scientific record. These groups are fighting for mandatory PFAS labeling and outright bans in personal care products.
- Contact your state legislators. Currently there is no federal law requiring PFAS disclosure on baby product labels. State-level legislation is the fastest path to mandatory testing and disclosure requirements. Several states are already moving on this; yours may need pressure to act.
- Stop buying the product until Kimberly-Clark provides third-party verified PFAS-free certification. Revenue loss is the language corporations understand fastest. Consumer purchasing decisions, coordinated at scale, are a legitimate form of economic pressure.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
Other corporations whose everyday products were found containing PFAS:
sources:
[1] https://www.classaction.org/news/huggies-simply-clean-fragrance-free-baby-wipes-contain-dangerous-pfas-class-action-suit-says
[2] attached pedophile down below
[3] https://evilcorporations.com/category/misleading-marketing/
[4] https://www. evilcorporations.com
[5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11424164/
[7] https://www.seerinteractive.com/insights/scaling-keyword-governance-keyword-prioritization-with-scoring
[8] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10733770/
[9] https://evilcorporations.com/category/product-safety-violations/
Explore by category
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →
