PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

CA, DC, DE, FL, GA, MD, MI, MN, NC, NJ, NM, NV, NY, NC, OH, SC, TX, VT, WA, WI

The world of PFAS litigation is quickly evolving. As regulatory scrutiny of these compounds increases, so, too, will the body of associated case law. From class actions to multidistrict litigation, this section will regularly highlight developments in PFAS-related litigation.

Content in this section does not reflect the opinion of Alston & Bird or its attorneys.

Please note, a subscription may be required to view some of this content.

 

Read the PFAS Primer Quarterly Update

Subscribe
Previous Issues

Federal Court Enjoins New Mexico PFAS Labeling Requirement

The District of New Mexico issued a preliminary injunction that enjoins a regulation adopted by New Mexico’s Environmental Improvement Board that would require manufacturers of products with intentionally added PFAS to label their product with an Erlenmeyer flask with the word “PFAS” inside the flask. The challenge to the regulation was brought by the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups based on their claims that the regulation violates the First Amendment and the Dormant Commerce Clause. On the element of likelihood of success on the merits, the court found that it is likely that the plaintiffs will be able to establish that there is no reasonable fit between the compelled speech in the regulation and New Mexico’s stated interest. On irreparable injury, the court observed that the Supreme Court has made clear that a loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Finally, the court held that the balance of the equities and the public interest supported the preliminary injunction.

September 16, 2026 | American Chemistry Council v. Kenney, No. 1:26-cv-02130 (D.N.M.).

North Carolina Reaches Deal for Alleged PFAS Contamination

While on appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court over a challenge to the North Carolina attorney general’s authority in North Carolina’s lawsuit against DuPont and its spinoffs, the parties announced that they reached a $590 million settlement to resolve North Carolina’s and local governments’ claims against the DuPont entities for alleged PFAS contamination. Under the terms of the agreement, $75 million will go to North Carolina and $380 million will go to local governments that were affected by the alleged contamination. That $455 million will be paid out over the next 10–15 years. The remaining $135 million will be used for a reserve fund to ensure compliance under a prior consent order. According to North Carolina, this is “the largest total environmental damages recovery in the state’s history.”

September 10, 2026 | State of North Carolina v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, No. 436A21-2 (N.C.).

D.C. Circuit Upholds CERCLA Designations for PFOA and PFOS

The D.C. Circuit rejected petitions brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups that asked the court to overturn the EPA’s designations of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The petitioners argued that (1) the EPA’s interpretation of “hazardous substances” was contrary to law; (2) the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis provided insufficient notice to the parties; and (3) the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis and decision to regulate in the face of uncertainties was arbitrary and capricious. The D.C. Circuit rejected each of these challenges.

First, based on the “plain language” of the statute, the D.C. Circuit held that the phrase “may present substantial danger” in CERCLA’s definition of a “hazardous substance” does not mean that the EPA had to find that the danger will be actually existing or real. Second, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the EPA provided adequate notice of the cost-benefit analysis through its earlier economic assessment and related request for comments. Third, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the EPA acted reasonably “based on the record before it.”

August 18, 2026 | Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir.).

Delaware Water Company Files Suit Against Nine Companies for PFAS Contamination

Veolia Water Delaware Inc., a Delaware water supplier, filed suit against nine companies, alleging that they released PFAS into watersheds that supply water to state residents, seeking $34.6 million allegedly related to costs for constructing a major treatment facility to remediate PFAS contamination.

August 13, 2026 | Veolia Water Delaware Inc. v. Ametek Inc., No. N26C-08-223 KMM, CCLD (Del. Super. Ct.).

New Jersey Finalizes $3 Billion Settlement

A federal judge approved a $3 billion settlement deal between New Jersey, 3M, and several DuPont entities resolving the state’s claims for alleged PFAS contamination. Specifically, the settlement calls for $2.5 billion from DuPont and its subsidiaries and an additional $450 million from 3M.

August 7, 2026 | New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. EI du Pont de Nemours, No. 1:19-cv-14758 (D.N.J.).