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

D.C. Circuit Stays Challenge to EPA’s PFAS Regulations Pending Possible Rule Change

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 in drinking water for six PFAS chemicals—came to a halt in February. In separate filings, the EPA asked the D.C. Circuit to hold the lawsuits in abeyance for 60 days pending its review of the regulations, which could reflect an effort by the new Administration to roll back those regulations. The D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s requests, so both lawsuits are now stayed pending further order of the court.

February 24, 2025 | Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir.).

February 7, 2025 | American Water Works Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir.).

PFAS Lawsuit Challenges Smartwatch Band Products

A class action has been filed in the Northern District of California alleging that Apple falsely advertised its Apple Watch Sport Band, Ocean Band, and Nike Sport Band as products designed to support human health and wellness and as environmentally sustainable. The plaintiffs allege these three specific products contain excessive levels of PFAS and that Apple supposedly misled consumers through a marketing campaign that emphasized health, well-being, and environmental sustainability, causing consumers to overpay for products that do not deliver the advertised benefits. The plaintiffs seek relief including monetary recovery for the price premium paid due to Apple’s alleged misleading advertising, as well as injunctive relief to stop Apple’s unlawful manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the products with the material omission and challenged representations.

February 21, 2025 | Cavalier, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:25-cv-00713 (N.D. Cal.).

Class Action Targets Alleged PFAS Misrepresentation in Outdoor Gear

A class action has been filed in the Eastern District of Washington against W. L. Gore & Associates Inc.—the Delaware-based maker of GORE-TEX—for allegedly misleading consumers about PFAS chemicals in its products. The plaintiffs claim that Gore engaged in greenwashing by promoting its products as environmentally friendly and PFAS-free while continuing to use the harmful chemicals in its apparel, violating the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides. The lawsuit alleges that Gore’s products release PFAS chemicals during use, contaminating the environment and water supply, without proper disclosure to consumers. The plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive relief for corrective disclosures, and cessation of deceptive practices, along with punitive damages, disgorgement, costs, attorneys’ fees, and interest.

February 11, 2025 | Mason, et al. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, No. 2:25-cv-00049 (E.D. Wash).

State of Texas Sues PFAS Manufacturers for Deceptive Trade Practices

Texas is the latest state to sue PFAS manufacturers for manufacturing and selling PFAS to the public without disclosing their alleged health and environmental risks. Texas alleges that the defendant manufacturers sold their Scotchgard and Teflon products as having “remarkable benefits such as resistance to heat, oil, stains, grease, and water” and that they “profited immensely from the sale of their products.” However, Texas claims that PFAS “pose risks to people’s health and impact the environment,” may be associated with diseases such as cancer, and can contaminate drinking water and the environment. Texas brings one count for violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act.

December 11, 2024 | State of Texas v. 3M Co., et al., No. DC-C202400996 (Tex. Dist. Ct.).

Georgia Federal Court Rejects $850 Million PFAS Remediation Claim

The Northern District of Georgia dismissed a plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction that would have required the defendants to clean up a 9,800-acre site allegedly contaminated with PFAS. A resident of Rome, Georgia, alleged that the defendants contaminated Rome’s drinking water, which in turn caused Rome to increase the plaintiff’s water rates. The court refused to order the defendants to clean up the site, finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because the plaintiff failed to show a cognizable health, property, or recreational injury and the plaintiff’s future ratepaying injury was moot because Rome agreed to not increase water rates due to PFAS contamination. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on this claim and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

December 10, 2024 | Johnson v. 3M Co., et al., No. 4:20-cv-00008 (N.D. Ga.).