Always Pads Lawsuit: What Is Actually Being Alleged in 2026?

A proposed class action known as the Always Pads lawsuit was filed on May 29, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case, Yuryeva v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 2:26-cv-05821, alleges that Always leak protection marketing, including phrases such as “100% leak-free” and “zero leaks,” may mislead shoppers. It does not allege that Always pads contain harmful chemicals or caused physical injury.

●       The core Always Pads lawsuit, Case No. 2:26-cv-05821, is a false advertising claim about leak-free marketing language, filed May 29, 2026, in the Central District of California.

●       A separate lawsuit filed by seven women in Los Angeles County alleges PFAS and other chemicals in several feminine hygiene brands, including Always and Always Discreet, contributed to reproductive harm.

●       No court has ruled that Always pads are unsafe, defective, or caused any specific illness.

●       No settlement, payout program, or claims deadline exists for either case as of August 1, 2026.

●       There is no FDA recall or company recall of Always pads tied to either lawsuit.

●       Consumers should verify any claim of a settlement or payout against an official court filing before acting on it.

Plaintiff Ruffina Yuryeva bought Always pads and later filed a proposed class action against Procter & Gamble in California federal court. She alleges that leak protection claims used on Always packaging and in advertising create expectations the products cannot consistently meet, since leak performance can vary with flow, pad size, body shape, movement, sleep position, and wear time.

This is a consumer protection and false advertising claim, not a personal injury case. As of August 1, 2026, no court has certified a class, and no settlement or payout program has been approved.

Yes, but it is a different case built on a different legal theory. In July 2026, seven California women filed a lawsuit against six companies, including Procter & Gamble, Kimberly-Clark, Essity, Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Edgewell Personal Care, and The Honey Pot Company. The complaint names Always and Always Discreet among the products the plaintiffs used and alleges the companies failed to disclose PFAS and other chemicals linked to reproductive harm, including miscarriage and a condition the filing calls polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome.

Kimberly-Clark has since filed a notice of removal, moving the case toward the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This case has not been certified as a class action, and Procter & Gamble has not been found liable for any of the alleged harms. Always is one of several brands named, not the sole target.

Separately, advocacy groups Toxic-Free Future and Weaving Voices have published testing that reported volatile organic compounds in some scented and unscented Always pads. These findings have not been confirmed in court and do not establish that normal use caused any specific illness.

The advertising claims case is Yuryeva v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 2:26-cv-05821, filed May 29, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The broader PFAS-related case, filed by Alassandra Franco Lopez and six other plaintiffs, originated in Los Angeles County Superior Court before Kimberly-Clark sought removal to federal court in July 2026. A specific federal docket number for the removed case had not been separately confirmed in public reporting at the time of writing.

Procter & Gamble has not issued a public statement specific to the Yuryeva advertising complaint as of August 1, 2026. In the PFAS-related case, Newsweek reported it contacted all named companies for comment; responses had not been published as of the most recent update.

No. There is no FDA recall or Procter & Gamble product recall of Always pads connected to either lawsuit as of August 1, 2026. Menstrual pads are regulated by the FDA as medical devices, but no enforcement action or recall notice tied to these allegations has been issued.

Two related but separate cases involving other brands are sometimes confused with the Always litigation. A 2024 California case involved Carefree pads made by Edgewell Personal Care, and a Tampax Pure Cotton PFAS case was dismissed in July 2025. Neither outcome applies to Always products.

Consumers who purchased Always pads marketed with leak-free or zero-leak language may have standing in the advertising case if a class is eventually certified. Separately, individuals who used Always, Always Discreet, or related products over an extended period and later developed reproductive health conditions may want to review the broader PFAS litigation, though eligibility for any future compensation has not yet been defined.

If you believe you may be affected, consider the general steps below. This is informational only and is not personalized legal advice.

●       Keep purchase records such as receipts, packaging, or order history, since proof of purchase may matter if a claims process opens later.

●       Document relevant medical history if you are considering the PFAS-related claims, including diagnosis dates and treating physicians.

●       Monitor official case dockets through PACER or an established class action tracking service rather than relying on unverified social media claims about settlements.

●       Consult a licensed attorney who handles consumer class actions or product liability cases to evaluate your individual situation. Many firms offer free initial consultations.

●       File a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or your state attorney general's consumer protection office if you experienced a specific issue with product performance or marketing.

Do not pay any fee to “join” a lawsuit before a class is certified and a court-approved claims process exists. Legitimate class actions typically do not require upfront payment.

The Yuryeva advertising case remains in its early stages, with no class certification hearing date publicly confirmed. The PFAS-related multi-defendant case is transitioning from state to federal court following Kimberly-Clark's removal filing in July 2026. No settlement, payout figure, or claims deadline has been announced for either case. Treat specific dollar figures, payout ranges, or urgent sign-up deadlines circulating online as unverified unless they cite a court order or an official settlement administrator notice.

Yes. A proposed class action over leak-free advertising claims, Case No. 2:26-cv-05821, was filed May 29, 2026, in federal court in California. A separate case alleging PFAS exposure names Always among several brands and is moving from state to federal court.

The advertising case does not mention PFAS. A separate case filed by seven women alleges PFAS and other chemicals in several feminine hygiene brands, including Always, contributed to reproductive health conditions, but this claim has not been proven in court.

No. As of August 1, 2026, no settlement, payout amount, or claims form has been approved in either the advertising case or the PFAS-related case.

No recall has been issued for Always pads related to either lawsuit as of this writing.

Ruffina Yuryeva is the named plaintiff in the leak-free advertising case against Procter & Gamble, filed in the Central District of California.

You can monitor the case through the federal court's PACER system using Case No. 2:26-cv-05821, or follow updates from established class action tracking sites and legal news outlets.