Procter & Gamble, Kimberly-Clark and Costco will be allowed to appeal a district court’s decision to certify three classes of consumers accusing them of mislabeling bathroom wipes as “flushable” when they can cause plumbing damage, a Second Circuit panel ruled in June. The ruling is the latest development in consumer suits filed in New York’s Eastern District targeting  a range of products, including Procter & Gamble Co.’s Charmin brand Freshmates and Kimberly-Clark Corp.’s Cottonelle Fresh Care Flushable Wipes & Cleansing Cloths.

According to plaintiffs across the nation, the wipes damage pipes and septic systems because they don’t disintegrate after being flushed. In February, a New York federal judge finalized a certification decision that created classes from Joseph Kurtz’s case — one for buyers of Kimberly-Clark’s wipes and one for people who picked up Costco Wholesale Corp.’s Kirkland Signature version and another for Anthony Belfiore’s case over P&G’s Freshmates.

In a motion filed in April, P&G argued that the court wrongfully certified the classes despite the fact the plaintiff hadn’t offered a unifying standard for the term “flushability.” Meanwhile, K-C’s motion argued that the order “recommended” Rule (23)f review before any further proceedings.

In a response, Belfiore said Judge Jack Weinstein based his order on a record that included well-documented evidence, such as Consumer Reports reviews that say shoppers shouldn’t flush the wipes, a Chicago news station investigation and testing from sewage experts.

And both Belfiore and Kurtz argued that the defendant companies didn’t meet the high standards for appealing class certification orders under Rule 23(f) as set out by the Second Circuit’s 2001 decision in In Re: Sumitomo Copper Litigation — that the class certification order will effectively terminate the litigation and the district court’s decision is questionable, or that the certification order implicates a legal question that requires immediate resolution.

But P&G had argued the case offered several “compelling legal issues” that required immediate review, including the idea that a plaintiff doesn’t need to provide common evidence of what a reasonable consumer understands a challenged advertisement to mean at the certification stage.

Other legal questions that require immediate attention include the court’s holding that plaintiffs don’t have to demonstrate an expert’s model is capable of proving classwide causation and injury, and that a plaintiff who doesn’t intend to purchase the offending product again can still seek injunctive relief, P&G said.