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

North Carolina Court Upholds Attorney General’s Authority to Pursue PFAS Suits

A North Carolina court has denied a motion to dismiss an environmental lawsuit brought by the state against chemical manufacturers over alleged PFAS contamination caused by operations at a chemical manufacturing facility. The defendants argued that the state attorney general lacked authority to maintain the suit following the repeal of N.C.G.S. § 114-2(8)(a), which previously authorized the attorney general to “institute and originate proceedings” and “appear before agencies on behalf of the State and its agencies and citizens in all matters affecting the public interest.” The court rejected the defendants’ argument, holding that the attorney general retains common-law authority to prosecute claims for harm to the state’s natural resources, including negligence, trespass, public nuisance, and fraud. The court also dismissed the defendants’ separation of powers concerns, finding no statutory bar to the attorney general pursuing damages independent of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.

August 7, 2025 | State of North Carolina ex rel. Jackson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., No. 20CVS005612-250 (N.C. Super. Ct.).

New Jersey Reaches $2 Billion Settlement over PFAS Contamination

The State of New Jersey announced a settlement with DuPont and related companies, including Chemours and Corteva, that is purportedly valued at more than $2 billion. The state’s lawsuits against DuPont arise out of alleged PFAS contamination at four different sites, including Pompton Lakes Works and Chambers Works, as well as DuPont’s alleged liability for the state’s AFFF claims. The $2 billion settlement figure consists of $875 million for restoration of natural resources and drinking-water treatment, $1.2 billion for a remediation funding source, and $475 million as an additional reserve fund.

August 4, 2025 | New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, No. 1:19-cv-14758 (D.N.J.).

Maryland Residents File RCRA Lawsuit Against Agriculture Giant over Alleged PFAS Contamination

Two Maryland residents filed a citizen suit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) against Perdue Farms Inc. for alleged PFAS contamination from a manufacturing plant in Salisbury, Maryland. The complaint alleges that the Perdue facility unlawfully disposes of PFAS-contaminated solid waste and wastewater, which then contaminate the local groundwater, surface water, and private drinking wells that allegedly caused harm to the plaintiffs’ health and property. The plaintiffs raise three claims under RCRA—open dumping, pollution of surface water, and contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and civil penalties and request the court order the defendants to pay for cleanup.

July 25, 2025 | Jones v. Perdue Farms Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02445 (D. Md.).

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.).