PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

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

Michigan Court Agrees that Michigan’s Rules on PFAS in Drinking Water Are Deficient

The Michigan State Court of Claims agreed with 3M Company (“3M”) that the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (“Mich. EGLE”) issued a deficient regulatory-impact statement when promulgating rules establishing the allowable maximum-contaminant levels of seven PFAS and PFOA chemicals in drinking water. The court found that the Mich. EGLE failed to consider anticipated costs imposed on 3M and other similarly situated companies by the proposed PFAS rules, which the Mich. EGLE reported would also set the Michigan rules for PFAS in groundwater. Although the court concluded that a deficient regulatory-impact statement invalidates the promulgated rules, it stayed the effects of its ruling until the parties have exhausted their appellate rights and a final judgment is issued. The Mich. EGLE has appealed the decision with the Michigan Court of Appeals

November 15, 2022 | 3M Co. v. Mich. Dep’t of Env’t, Great Lakes, & Energy Case No. 21-000078-MZ (Mich. Cl. Ct.)

California Attorney General Files Suit Against 3M Company and Other Chemical Companies for PFAS Use

The Office of Attorney General of California filed a civil complaint against 3M Company and other chemical companies, alleging that the defendant chemical companies knew or should have known that PFAS chemicals are toxic and harmful to human health and the environment and that these companies continued to produce these chemicals for use in products and concealed their harmful effects.

November 10, 2022 | State v. 3M Co. (Cal. Super. Ct.)

City of Philadelphia Files Suit Against 3M Company and other Chemical Companies Over Alleged Statewide PFAS Pollution

The City of Philadelphia filed a civil complaint against 3M Company, DuPont, and other chemical companies alleging that the chemical defendant companies designed, manufactured, promoted, sold, used, and disposed of PFAS-rich aqueous film-forming foam in Philadelphia, despite allegedly knowing that PFAS was dangerous and toxic.

November 4, 2022 | City of Phila. v. 3M Co. Case No. 221100676 (Phila. Ct. C.P.)

North Carolina Supreme Court Requires DuPont’s Successor Companies to Address DuPont’s Potential PFAS Liabilities

The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision that spinoffs of Historic E. I. du Pont de Nemours (“DuPont”), including the Chemours Company (“Chemours”) and Corteva, Inc. (“Corteva”), share in DuPont’s potential PFAS-related liabilities – despite the spinoff companies never conducting business in North Carolina, never operating the plant at issue, and never made, sold, distributed, or discharged PFAS in North Carolina.

November 4, 2022 | State v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Case No. 2022-NCSC-110, No. 436A21 (N.C.)

North Carolina Brings Additional AFFF Lawsuits Against Chemical Manufacturers

Two state court complaints were filed in North Carolina arising out of the alleged use of aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) to fight fires at various military air bases. The state is seeking compensation for the costs of investigating, remediating, treating, assessing, and restoring the facilities and waters allegedly contaminated by AFFF products.

October 18, 2022 | State of North Carolina v. 3M Company, et al. Case No. 22-CVS-2812 (Onslow Cnty. Ct.)