PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

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

Washington Water Company Sues Department of Defense and PFAS Manufacturers for over Contamination

Lakewood Water District in Washington sued the Department of Defense, Air Force, Army and PFAS manufacturers, alleging it will pay over $377 million in attempts to mitigate PFAS contamination from firefighting foam used on Joint Base Lewis-McChord. The Water District is seeking transfer of the case to the South Carolina AFFF MDL.

July 16, 2020 | Lakewood Water District v. United States, et al., No. 3:20-cv-05691-RSM (W.D. Wash.)

Another Firefighter Suit Added to South Carolina MDL

Plaintiff Frank Tigar, who worked as a firefighter in North Carolina for decades, sued AFFF manufacturers as a result of two cancer diagnoses he alleges were caused by career PFAS exposure.

June 29, 2020 | In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873 (D.S.C.)

Residents of Cohoe, NY File Intent to Sue Norlite over Foam Burning Operations

Residents of Saratoga Sites, a public housing complex next to a Norlite incinerator in Cohoes, New York, have filed an intent to sue Norlite, its parent company, EPA, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in federal court over Norlite’s historical and continuing burning of firefighter foam.

June 23, 2020 

Putative Consumer Class Action Alleges PFAS in Disposable Dinnerware

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Amazon on behalf of consumers who purchased disposable foodware Defendant allegedly advertised as compostable. Plaintiff contends these products contain PFAS and thus, given PFAS’ resistance to degradation, are not compostable. Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and restitution.

June 17, 2020 | Nguyen v. Amazon.com, Inc., 3:20-cv-04042 (N.D. Cal.)

Kroger Sued in Putative Class Action for Sale of Alleged Non-Compostable, PFAS-Containing Disposable Plates and Bowls

Putative consumer class action against Kroger alleging it sold disposable dinnerware that, although advertised as compostable, was not compostable and contained PFAS. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and to disgorge Kroger of its revenues and profits related to sales of the dinnerware.

June 16, 2020 | Ambrose v. The Kroger Co., No. 3:20-cv-04009-DMR (N.D. Cal.)