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

Waterproof Gear Company Gears Up for Renewed Putative Class Action

A class action was filed against the manufacturer of Gore-Tex for allegedly misleading consumers about PFAS chemicals in its waterproof gear. Gore-Tex moved to dismiss the complaint for various reasons, including failure to state a claim, lack of Article III standing, and improper venue. Most notably, Gore-Tex argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the garments they purchased in fact contained PFAS in any amount, let alone in amounts that are hazardous. Similar arguments have gained traction in recent PFAS decisions, including several decisions from federal courts in New York and California. In response, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their suit, and the very same day, the same plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a new putative class action against Gore-Tex in Maryland.

June 17, 2025 | Walton v. W.L. Gore & Associates, No. 1:25-cv-01948 (D. Md.).
April 28, 2025 and June 17, 2025 | Mason v. W.L. Gore & Associates, No. 2:25-cv-00049 (E.D. Wash.).

EPA Continues to Seek Stay of Challenges to PFAS Regulations Amid Rollbacks

The D.C. Circuit has stayed two lawsuits brought by industry groups challenging the EPA’s recent regulation of PFAS, including its designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA and its final rule setting maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in drinking water for certain PFAS chemicals. Since then, the EPA has sought, and the D.C. Circuit has granted, two additional stays in the challenge to the CERCLA regulations. The EPA indicated it was evaluating the rule and developing its strategy to address PFOA and PFOS and how to proceed in the litigation. In the lawsuit challenging the MCL designations, the EPA has sought, and the D.C. Circuit has granted, three additional stays. The EPA explained that it was still evaluating the impact on the litigation of its recent rollback of the MCLs for all PFAS other than PFOS and PFOA and the compliance deadline extension for the MCLs for PFOS and PFOA until 2031.

June 5, 2025 | American Water Works Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir.).
June 2, 2025 | Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir.).

Court Weighs Scope of ‘Irreparable Harm’ in PFAS Permit Suit

The Southern District of West Virginia is weighing whether ongoing violations of water-quality-based permit limits for PFAS discharge—specifically hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)—are sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction against The Chemours Company. In briefs filed after a May injunction hearing, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition argued Chemours’s allegedly continuing permit violations constitute irreparable harm to the Ohio River and downstream drinking-water sources. Chemours conceded exceeding discharge limits but argued that the plaintiffs must show personal, not just environmental, harm. In a May 27, 2025 order, the court asked the parties to brief whether incremental harm to human health qualifies as irreparable harm for injunctive relief and Article III standing.

May 30, 2025 | West Virginia Rivers Coalition Inc. v. The Chemours Company, No. 2:24-cv-00701 (S.D. W. Va.).

Court Denies Bid to Wipe Baby Wipes Class Action

After previously granting Costco’s motion to dismiss but with leave to amend, a court denied Costco’s latest request to dismiss a putative class action for allegedly selling PFAS-containing baby wipes. In its previous order, the court observed that “PFAS” is “not a magic word that can be invoked to open automatically the doors to federal litigation” and held that the plaintiff failed to identify the specific PFAS in her product, such that the case was subject to dismissal. But this time, the court allowed the putative class action complaint to proceed past the motion to dismiss stage. Unlike in the original complaint, the plaintiff used a “Department of Defense ELAP-certified laboratory” to determine the levels of certain PFAS in baby wipes. The court will not decide the degree to which those levels present an alleged public health hazard nor whether and when to impose liability on manufacturers of particular products in which those chemicals are detected.

May 14, 2025 | Bullard v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 3:24-cv-03714 (N.D. Cal.).

Federal Claims Court Tosses PFAS Takings Suit Against Air Force

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has dismissed a $400 million lawsuit filed by property owners near Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico who alleged the Air Force’s decades-long use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam amounted to a taking of their property without just compensation. The court cited three “independent yet overlapping” grounds for dismissal. First, it dismissed plaintiffs who are already pursuing similar relief in pending multidistrict litigation over PFAS-containing AFFF before the District of South Carolina, finding their claims barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1500. Second, it found the claims of most remaining plaintiffs unripe because they lacked confirmed PFAS contamination on their property. Third, the court rejected the final claims because they both sounded in tort and otherwise failed to assert a cognizable Fifth Amendment takings claim. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege government intent to invade their property or any benefit conferred on the government by the alleged contamination.

March 26, 2025 | Schaap v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-01300 (Fed. Cl.).