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, WI

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

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.).

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.).