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

State of Texas Sues PFAS Manufacturers for Deceptive Trade Practices

Texas is the latest state to sue PFAS manufacturers for manufacturing and selling PFAS to the public without disclosing their alleged health and environmental risks. Texas alleges that the defendant manufacturers sold their Scotchgard and Teflon products as having “remarkable benefits such as resistance to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water” and that they “profited immensely from the sale of their products.” However, Texas claims that PFAS “pose risks to people’s health and impact the environment,” may be associated with diseases such as cancer, and can contaminate drinking water and the environment. Texas brings one count for violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act.

December 11, 2024 | State of Texas v. 3M Co., et al., No. DC-C202400996 (Tex. Dist. Ct.).

Georgia Federal Court Rejects $850 Million PFAS Remediation Claim

The Northern District of Georgia dismissed a plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction that would have required the defendants to clean up a 9,800-acre site allegedly contaminated with PFAS. A resident of Rome, Georgia, alleged that the defendants contaminated Rome’s drinking water, which in turn caused Rome to increase the plaintiff’s water rates. The court refused to order the defendants to clean up the site, finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because the plaintiff failed to show a cognizable health, property, or recreational injury and the plaintiff’s future ratepaying injury was moot because Rome agreed to not increase water rates due to PFAS contamination. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on this claim and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

December 10, 2024 | Johnson v. 3M Co., et al., No. 4:20-cv-00008 (N.D. Ga.).

Diaper Manufacturer Wins Dismissal of PFAS-Related Suit

The Southern District of New York granted Coterie Baby’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that Coterie’s diapers contained PFAS despite advertising that its diapers are free from PFAS and other chemicals. The plaintiff alleged that she was injured because she paid more for the diapers than she would have if she had known that the diapers purportedly contained PFAS. The court held that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to assert her claims because she failed to plausibly show that the specific diapers that she purchased contained PFAS. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s allegation that PFAS are “ubiquitous,” including in dust accumulating in buildings, such that it was “essentially impossible to manufacture, ship and sell a diaper that is entirely PFAS-free.”

October 3, 2024 | Saedi v. Coterie Baby Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03893 (S.D.N.Y.).

Court Rejects Attempt to Dispose of Suit Alleging “Compostable” Products Contain PFAS

A California plaintiff survived a motion to dismiss her claims that NatureStar North America and Target Corporation should be liable for the allegedly false and deceptive business practice of marketing tableware and food storage bags—which allegedly contain PFAS—as “compostable” when PFAS cannot be composted. The defendants’ motion challenged the plaintiff’s standing on three grounds: (1) lack of a concrete injury; (2) ripeness; and (3) failure to support injunctive relief. Ultimately, the court agreed with the defendants’ injunctive relief argument—because the plaintiff failed to allege that she was likely to purchase the product in the future—but the court also noted that this deficiency can be cured and therefore granted the plaintiff leave to amend. The court rejected the defendants’ concrete injury and ripeness arguments, ruling that the plaintiff properly pleaded the “well-established” concrete injury of paying a premium for a falsely advertised product and further ruling that the plaintiff’s claims were ripe because they presented a ripe legal question about the FTC Green Guides’ definition of “compostable.”

September 11, 2024 | Little v. NatureStar North America LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00232 (E.D. Cal.).

Wisconsin Supreme Court Will Review Decision Striking Down PFAS Hazardous Substance Listing

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to review a landmark ruling that struck down Wisconsin’s hazardous substance listing for PFAS, which effectively blocked regulators from requiring cleanup of PFAS without first completing a rulemaking. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals invalidated the state Department of Natural Resources’ policies on PFAS as hazardous substances under the state’s long-standing Spills Law and voided enforcing thresholds or requirements for the substances and the department’s liability waiver policy. The court of appeals agreed with the lower court that these policies are rulemakings that did not follow procedural rulemaking requirements.

September 11, 2024 | Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Inc. v. Wisconsin DNR, No. 2022AP000718 (Wis.).