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

Australia Sues to Recover Billions in PFAS Cleanup Costs at Defense Bases

The Australian government announced that it commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against 3M Company and 3M Australia Pty Ltd. to recover costs for alleged PFAS contamination at 28 defense bases across Australia, where PFAS were allegedly present in legacy firefighting foams used for many years. The government alleges that 3M withheld information and misrepresented the effects of its AFFF, did not fully disclose what it knew about the environmental risks of AFFF, and gave assurances about disposal and environmental safety that were inconsistent with its knowledge at the time. The Australian government is seeking more than AUS$2 billion in damages to recover past and future expenses incurred in investigating and managing contamination from the historical storage and use of AFFF.

May 28, 2026 | Commonwealth of Australia v. 3M Co. (Fed. Ct. Austl.).

Montana Federal Court Declines to Sanction Forum-Shopping Plaintiffs

The District of Montana denied motions for fees, costs, sanctions, and a stay under Rule 41(d) that were brought by 3M, DuPont, and other defendants in a nationwide class action alleging that PFAS-containing firefighter gear caused certain health effects. The Connecticut purchaser plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed their first-filed Connecticut action and then refiled in Montana, where related municipal claims had progressed more quickly. The defendants argued that this reflected improper forum- and judge-shopping, especially given the plaintiffs’ earlier opposition to transfer to the AFFF MDL based on their position that Connecticut was the proper venue. The District of Montana disagreed, finding that although the plaintiffs took somewhat inconsistent positions, changed circumstances—including the Montana action’s faster pace and the addition of new plaintiff cities—justified consolidation there. Because there had been no adverse substantive rulings against the plaintiffs in Connecticut, the court found no bad faith and denied the motions.

May 28, 2026 | City & County of Butte-Silver Bow v. 3M Co., No. 2:25-cv-00036 (D. Mont.).

Michigan Landfills Survive Motion to Dismiss in CERCLA PFAS Case

Two Michigan landfills, Central Sanitary Landfill and Ottowa County Landfill, survived motions to dismiss their Superfund cost recovery claims against PFAS manufacturers and users. In denying the motions to dismiss, the court rejected the defendant’s “useful product” defense—that it sold a legitimate, valuable product that only later became a hazardous waste. The court also rejected an argument that at least one of the plaintiffs did not actually allege a release of PFAS-contaminated leachate and that any releases that did occur were covered as federally permitted under the Clean Water Act.

May 7, 2026 | Central Sanitary Landfill Inc. v. Wolverine World Wide Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01639 (W.D. Mich.).

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.).