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

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.).

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.).