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

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

California County Files RICO Class Action Against Chemical Companies

San Mateo County filed a proposed RICO class action against 19 chemical companies alleging that their firefighter protective gear contains PFAS. The county alleges the defendants’ turnout gear is treated with PFAS, which then increases the risk of exposure to firefighters during firefighting activities. The defendants knew of the risks of PFAS, the complaint alleges, but failed to disclose those risks to fire departments or other public entities purchasing the defendants’ products. The county seeks to represent a class of all U.S. states’ political subdivisions that purchased or paid for firefighter turnout gear that contained PFAS. The complaint raises 13 causes of action, including claims for violations of RICO, common-law conspiracy, strict liability, fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentations, breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, and California state-law claims. The county seeks compensatory damages, restitution, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

March 19, 2026 | County of San Mateo v. 3M Company, No. 3:26-cv-02380 (N.D. Cal.).

PFAS Class Action Challenging Smartwatch Bands Largely Allowed to Proceed

The Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Apple Inc.’s motion to dismiss a proposed consumer class action alleging that the wristbands of Apple Watch products contained high levels of PFHxA. As previously reported by the PFAS Primer, the plaintiffs alleged Apple Watch products contained excessive levels of PFAS and that Apple supposedly misled consumers through a marketing campaign that emphasized health, well-being, and environmental sustainability, causing consumers to overpay for products that do not deliver the advertised benefits. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue and adequately alleged the presence of PFHxA in the products based on independent lab testing and that the plaintiffs’ claims were not time-barred. The court also rejected Apple’s argument that differences in state law prevented the plaintiffs from bringing a nationwide class action, concluding that Apple failed to show why California law would not apply or what other state laws would conflict with California law. The court dismissed with leave to amend the plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and implied warranty of merchantability.

March 17, 2026 | Cavalier v. Apple Inc., No. 5:25-cv-00713 (N.D. Cal.).

SCOTUS Denies Certiorari in PFAS-Related Removal Jurisdiction Cases

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in two lawsuits brought by the State of Maryland and the State of South Carolina against 3M and other defendants arising out of alleged PFAS contamination in their states. 3M removed those lawsuits under the federal officer removal statute—arguing the alleged contamination must have come from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), for which 3M has a government contractor defense. This is the same strategy 3M has used to remove AFFF lawsuits across the country to federal court, and then 3M has those lawsuits consolidated in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL). Originally, after removal, the district courts remanded the lawsuits brought by Maryland and South Carolina, but—as previously reported by the PFAS Primer—the Fourth Circuit reversed and held that 3M properly removed those lawsuits. In their petition for writ of certiorari, Maryland and South Carolina argued that 3M’s removal was improper because the states do not allege PFAS contamination caused by AFFF. The states also noted that the Fourth Circuit’s decision creates a circuit split with the First, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari will allow 3M to continue to remove PFAS-related lawsuits to federal court and may allow 3M to continue to transfer them to the AFFF MDL, even when the lawsuits are not on their face related to AFFF.

March 2, 2026 | State of Maryland v. 3M Co., State of South Carolina v. 3M Co., No. 25-517 (U.S.).

Court Rips Off the Band-Aid and Dismisses Consumer PFAS Lawsuit

The District of New Jersey dismissed a class action brought against Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue alleging the presence of PFAS in the defendants’ Band-Aid products. The plaintiffs alleged that they “reasonably believed” that the Band-Aids were “safe for use around, adjacent to, and near skin and open wounds” and that they would have paid less for those for those products had they known they allegedly contained PFAS. In their motions to dismiss, the defendants argued that, among other things, the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, and the court agreed. The court first rejected the plaintiffs’ “benefit of the bargain” alleged injury because they failed to show any adverse health consequences and failed to allege any actionable misrepresentations. The court separately rejected the plaintiffs’ “premium price” and “alternative product” theories of injury because the plaintiffs did not allege that they would in fact purchase other products instead of Band-Aids.

February 2, 2026 | Aronstein v. Kenvue Inc., No. 3:24-cv-04665 (D.N.J.).

D.C. Circuit Denies EPA’s Request to Vacate Drinking-Water Limits for Four PFAS

A D.C. Circuit motions panel denied the EPA’s motion to vacate four of six PFAS limits for drinking water. Industry groups and water utilities had challenged the EPA’s final rule setting maximum contaminant levels in drinking water for certain PFAS chemicals. The EPA sought to vacate four of the six PFAS limits (for HPFO-DA, PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS), arguing they were invalid due to procedural errors by the previous administration, but did not walk back the limits for PFOA or PFOS. In denying the EPA’s request to vacate, the court found the merits of the parties’ positions were “not so clear as to warrant summary action.” As a result of the denial, the six PFAS limits remain in place while the litigation proceeds on the merits, creating uncertainty for water utilities because any final decision is unlikely before the rule’s deadlines take effect.

January 21, 2026 | American Water Works Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir.).