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

Residents Sue over PFAS Contamination in College Drinking Water

Residents, students, and employees of the College of Central Florida filed a putative class action alleging that firefighting training activities on the campus contaminated local drinking water with PFAS from aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products from certain manufacturers. The complaint, now removed to federal court, alleges that the use of the defendants’ AFFF by a former occupant of the college led to PFOS and PFOA migrating into the campus’s wells. The plaintiffs cite a 2018 testing performed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection allegedly showing PFAS levels in two of three wells at approximately 250,000 to 270,000 parts per trillion (ppt), far above the EPA’s 70 ppt health advisory level. The plaintiffs allege that decades of exposure to these PFAS have caused health conditions, including thyroid disease, kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis, and other ailments, and they seek damages and medical monitoring. The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants knew or should have known of the chemicals’ toxicity and persistence.

October 15, 2025 | Zache v. 3M Company, No. 5:25-cv-00648 (M.D. Fla.).

Minnesota Tribe Sues Corporate Giants over PFAS Contamination

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe sued multiple manufacturers, alleging that PFAS containing products they manufactured or sold contaminated the tribe’s drinking water, lake, and other natural resources. The complaint, now removed to federal court, alleges that PFAS levels on tribal lands exceed state, federal, and tribal limits. The plaintiff claims that the PFAS contamination is traced to some of the defendant’s products including aqueous film forming foam (AFFF). The suit alleges that PFAS have entered the environment through landfills, composting facilities, airports, and wastewater plants, contributing to cancer, liver disease, developmental defects, and other illnesses. The complaint alleges claims of public nuisance, negligence, products liability, and unjust enrichment, as well as fraudulent transfer against a manufacturer and a cost recovery claim against another manufacturer under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act.

October 13, 2025 | Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe v. 3M Company, No. 0:25-cv-03930 (D. Minn.).

Consumers Sue over PFAS in “Organic” Fertilizer

Consumers filed a putative class action in California federal court against The Scotts Company LLC, an organic soil and fertilizer producer, alleging that its Miracle-Gro organic soil and fertilizer products contain PFAS. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant uses the “organic” label to induce consumers to believe that the products contain only naturally occurring, non-synthetic ingredients and that they are therefore a superior alternative to less expensive, non-organic products. The complaint also alleges that the defendant failed to disclose the presence of PFAS despite the alleged association between long-term exposure and serious health conditions such as various cancers and ulcerative colitis. The plaintiffs further claim that reasonable consumers do not expect PFAS to be present in products marketed for growing fruits and vegetables in residential gardens. The suit brings claims under California consumer protection laws and seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief based on alleged misleading, deceptive, and false advertising and unfair business practices.

October 7, 2025 | Calcagno v. The Scotts Company LLC, No. 3:25-cv-02661 (C.D. Cal.).

Second Circuit Holds That Non-AFFF-Related Removal Was Timely

One of the hottest issues in PFAS-related litigation is whether and when a defendant can remove a case to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute. 3M regularly and successfully removes cases filed in state court to federal court based on that statute and claims that its manufacture of AFFF in accordance with the U.S. military’s specifications allows it to exercise that removal right. However, in one recent case, 3M removed a lawsuit filed against it by the State of Vermont that arose in part from copper-clad laminates (rather than AFFF) that 3M made in accordance with the U.S. military’s specifications. The District of Vermont remanded the lawsuit and held that 3M’s notice of removal was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after receiving a letter identifying the facility that manufactured the laminates. The Second Circuit reversed on appeal, reasoning that the letter did not provide enough information for 3M to ascertain that the case was removable under the federal-officer removal statute and that instead 3M first needed to investigate that facility and what it manufactured.

August 19, 2025 | State of Vermont v. 3M Company, No. 24-1250 (2nd Cir.).

Challenge to Minnesota’s PFAS-Containing Cookware Legislation Gets Cooked

The District of Minnesota dismissed an industry group’s lawsuit that challenged Minnesota’s law banning cookware and other products that contain intentionally added PFAS. The industry group claimed that the law violated the dormant Commerce Clause, which “denies the States the power unjustifiably to discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce.” According to the industry group, which consists of members that are headquartered outside Minnesota but sell fluoropolymer nonstick products in the state, the law discriminated unfairly against out-of-state manufacturers like its members. The court disagreed and granted the state’s motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that the law is facially neutral and that, though it may have a disparate impact on out-of-state businesses, does not make the law discriminatory. The court also found that the industry group failed to plausibly allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce.

August 11, 2025 | Cookware Sustainability Alliance v. Kessler, No. 0:25-cv-00041 (D. Minn.).