Judge Approves Seven-Figure Settlement in Rust-Oleum Greenwashing Case

/in , ,

Rust-Oleum will pay $1.5 million to resolve a class action challenging green marketing claims on its “Krud Kutter” cleaning products, under a settlement approved by the Northern District of California on October 2, 2025.

As part of the agreement, Rust-Oleum must permanently remove “Non-Toxic” claims from product labels.  In addition, the company must qualify its “Earth Friendly” claims with an asterisk that directs consumers to clarifying language on the back label, such as “Contains no inorganic phosphates, hazardous solvents, or environmentally harmful surfactants.”

The plaintiff argued these claims were deceptive because Krud Kutter products contain hazardous ingredients.  “The Products’ [safety data sheets (SDSs)] make clear that the Products are certainly not” non-toxic or earth-friendly, the first amended complaint stated.

The complaint also claimed the label language violated Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), which prohibit language that “negates or disclaims” required caution statements.

After attorney fees, litigation costs, and settlement administration expenses, approximately $550,000 will be distributed among more than 23,000 class members.  Any remaining funds will go to Earthjustice and Mamavation, a consumer watchdog group.

The case is Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corp., No. 3:20-cv-03268 (N.D. Cal.), filed 5/13/2020.  More details are available in a previous post.

Judge Tosses PFAS Carpet Class Action for Lack of Standing

/in ,

A proposed class action against 3M and Chemours for concealing the risks of PFAS carpet treatments failed to establish standing, a Minnesota federal judge ruled on September 30, 2025.

As discussed in a previous post, the suit alleged violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to commit various state-law torts, and over one hundred other state-law claims.  Plaintiffs claimed 3M and Chemours conspired to hide PFAS hazards from carpet manufacturers and consumers, deceiving purchasers and causing property damage from PFAS contamination.

These allegations never made it off the starting block.  In its order, the Minnesota District Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they suffered an injury in fact or that the injury was fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct—two requirements for Article III standing.

“Plaintiffs never allege that the carpet they purchased actually has been treated with PFAS products,” the order states.  Moreover, “none of the allegations in the Complaint trace any potential injury to Defendants’ products, as opposed to the products developed by…nonparties.”

According to the court, the complaint relied on a report produced by California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to argue that “most residential and commercial carpets are treated” with PFAS.  But since “most” could mean “a mere majority,” it “cannot support a reasonable inference that Plaintiffs’ carpets were treated with PFAS,” the order states.

Although these deficiencies alone warranted dismissal, the court went a step further, expressing concerns with the plaintiffs RICO charges and elements of their Minnesota common law claims.  For example, the court observed that “many courts” require that plaintiffs purchase products directly from the alleged antitrust violator to establish standing under RICO, while the plaintiffs in this case purchased their carpets from a third-party retailer.

The case is Peterson v. 3M Co., No. 24-CV-03497 (D. Minn.), filed 8/30/2024.

EPA Not Required to Regulate PFAS in Sewage Sludge, Court Rules

/in ,

EPA is not required to identify and regulate PFAS in sewage sludge under the Clean Water Act (CWA), a federal judge ruled on September 29, 2025, in Farmer v. EPA, No. 24-cv-1654.

The CWA defines sewage sludge as “solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.”  Every two years, the law mandates that EPA review its sewage sludge regulations and release a report “for the purpose of identifying additional toxic pollutants [in sewage sludge] and promulgating regulations for such pollutants.”

The case was brought by a group of farmers, a nonprofit that promotes organic agriculture, and an organization representing Potomac River watershed residents.  The plaintiffs argued that the widespread use of sewage sludge as fertilizer introduces PFAS into the food chain and contaminates water and property.  “EPA’s failure to identify and regulate PFAS in sewage sludge exposes Plaintiffs to continuing harm from future applications of sewage sludge on nearby properties,” their June 2024 complaint states.

They sought a court order requiring EPA to identify 18 specific PFAS compounds in its next biennial report and to regulate 11 PFAS that the agency had already identified in previous reports—including PFOA and PFOS.

In its opinion, the D.C. District court concluded that the plaintiffs’ request exceeds the CWA’s requirements because the statute does not impose date-certain deadlines on the agency.  “Although the plain language of the CWA imposes a non-discretionary duty on EPA to review its regulations on a biennial basis, it does not mandate that EPA also identify and regulate sewage-sludge pollutants within the same time frame,” the opinion states.

The court further held that neither the biennial report nor EPA’s failure to list pollutants in that report constitutes a final agency action subject to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review.  However, the court noted that the plaintiffs could challenge EPA’s inaction through a CWA petition, the denial of which “could constitute a final agency action” under the APA.

Company Sues EPA to Block Disclosure of Chemical Identities Under TSCA

/in , ,

A silicates manufacturer is suing EPA to prevent the disclosure of its confidential business information (CBI) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), in what at least one source claims may be a case of first impression under the law.

At issue are the chemical identities of two substances that Burgess Pigment Co. initially failed to substantiate as CBI following the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments to TSCA, which introduced new requirements for companies that seek trade secret protection in their submissions to EPA.

Burgess claims it submitted adequate substantiation once it discovered its oversight, maintained its CBI claim in subsequent filings, and has stayed in “constant contact” with EPA.  According to the complaint, if EPA discloses the chemical identities anyway, it would violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

“EPA’s unreasonable adherence to form over function caused it to fail to adhere to its regulations requiring nondisclosure of properly substantiated CBI and is otherwise arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law,” the complaint states.

According to the complaint, Burgess was one of many companies that failed to respond to the 2017 rule implementing the new CBI requirements.  In 2021, EPA released a rule to reopen the reporting period, but it was never published in the Federal Register.

The case is Burgess Pigment Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 5:25-cv-00309 (M.D. Ga.), filed 7/18/25.

California Releases Preliminary List of Companies Covered by New Climate Disclosure Laws

/in ,

On September 24, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a preliminary list of covered entities under two new California climate disclosure laws that will require thousands of companies to report, with initial reporting deadlines beginning in 2026.

California’s SB 261 and SB 253, enacted in 2023, apply to companies formed under U.S. law that do business in California and have total annual revenues above certain thresholds:

  • SB 261 ($500 million threshold): Requires biennial disclosure of climate-related financial risk beginning January 1, 2026.
  • SB 253 ($1 billion threshold): Requires annual disclosure of scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions for the prior fiscal year beginning in 2026, and scope 3 emissions beginning in 2027. CARB has proposed a June 30, 2026, deadline for the first submission.

For each company, the preliminary list indicates whether reporting is required under both laws or only under SB 261.

SB 261 Reporting Guidance

The preliminary list follows CARB’s September 2 release of draft guidance on compliance with SB 261, which clarifies what information covered entities must include in their biennial reports.

Under the draft guidance, covered entities can choose between three reporting frameworks to meet disclosure requirements for four different areas: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets.  For each reporting area, the draft guidance outlines minimum disclosure requirements.

The draft guidance acknowledges that disclosures “will vary depending on the company, the discretion of the preparers, and the chosen reporting framework.”  CARB also states that a “guiding principle in preparation of these reports should be meeting the needs of the users of the biennial reports,” such as “investors and other stakeholders.”

Notably, CARB is not currently requiring disclosure of scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions for the initial reporting period.  In addition, companies may submit disclosures based on either calendar year or fiscal year data for their first biennial report.

Trump Administration Proposes Overhaul of Biden-Era TSCA Risk Evaluation Framework

/in , ,

On September 23, 2025, EPA published a proposed rule that would roll back key provisions of the agency’s May 2024 risk evaluation framework rule, which sets out the procedures EPA uses to assess the risks of existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

According to EPA, the proposal is intended to “effectuate the best reading of the statute and ensure that the procedural framework rule does not impede the timely completion of risk evaluations or impair the effective and efficient protection of health and the environment.”

The rollback is a priority for the Trump administration, which first announced its intent to reconsider the rulemaking in March.  The 2024 rule—itself a revision of a rule issued during the first Trump administration—has been criticized by industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council and targeted for revision by the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” initiative.

What Changes is EPA Proposing?

If finalized, the rule would:

  • Grant EPA discretion to narrow the scope of risk evaluations by excluding conditions of use and exposure pathways from its assessments.
  • Require that separate risk determinations be made for each of a chemical’s conditions of use, instead of a single risk determination for the chemical as a whole.
  • Remove language prohibiting EPA from assuming worker protections through PPE usage.
  • Eliminate “overburdened communities” from the list of “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations” that must be considered in evaluations.
  • Provide EPA with greater flexibility to revise or supplement scope or risk evaluation documents without restarting the prioritization process.
  • Scale back information collection requirements for manufacturers requesting a risk evaluation.
Stakeholder Responses

The proposal has drawn criticism from environmental groups, who warn that the changes—particularly EPA’s ability to exclude conditions of use and exposure pathways—will jeopardize public health.

“Rather than looking at the full picture of a chemical’s toxic risk, EPA wants to downplay the links these chemicals have to cancer and chronic disease and give the chemical industry a handout at the expense of our health and safety,” an Environmental Defense Fund official said in a statement.

“The chemicals in the pipeline for review under TSCA have been prioritized specifically because of the risks they pose to our health, and rewriting this process to lowball risks will only rig the rules to benefit the chemical industry,” she continued.

The American Chemistry Council, on the other hand, applauded the move.  “This proposed approach demonstrates EPA’s commitment to refining its processes in a way that is both protective and practical,” an official said in a press release.  “The proposal reflects meaningful progress toward a more science-driven regulatory framework for conducting TSCA risk evaluations.”

Comments on the proposed rule are due November 7, 2025.  More on the 2024 rule can be found here.

EPA Stands by CERCLA PFAS Designation Amid Legal Challenge

/in , ,

EPA under the Trump administration will defend a rule issued by the Biden administration designating two PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the agency told the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 17, 2025.

“EPA has completed its review and has decided to keep the Rule in place,” the agency wrote in a court filing.

The case, Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. EPA, No. 24-1193, consolidates challenges to the May 2024 rule.  It has been held in abeyance since February at EPA’s request while the Trump administration determined how to proceed.

EPA’s decision to defend the rule is somewhat unexpected.  Last month, the New York Times reported that internal EPA documents recommended its repeal, stating that its “cons outweigh pros.”

Key Impacts of the CERCLA Designation

The rule has significant consequences for EPA’s ability to respond to contamination and assign cleanup responsibility for PFOA and PFOS, the two PFAS covered by the designation.

“Designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances eliminates barriers to timely cleanup of contaminated sites, enables EPA to shift responsibility for cleaning up certain sites from the Fund to [potentially responsible parties (PRPs)], and allows EPA to compel PRPs to address additional contaminated sites,” the rule states.

Due to the designation, entities that release PFOA and PFOS above reportable quantities must notify authorities.  When releases occur, EPA (and other agencies) can more quickly respond, because they no longer need to first determine that the release “may present an imminent and substantial danger.”

Crucially, the designation also allows EPA to compel PRPs to take action in response to significant PFOS or PFOA contamination—often at their own expense.

The rule justifies listing PFOA and PFOS based on their health hazards, persistence and mobility in the environment, and bioaccumulation in humans and other organisms.  EPA also conducted a “totality of the circumstances” analysis, which weighed the pros and cons of their designation.

More on EPA’s PFAS and CERCLA actions can be found on our CERCLA archive.

Prop 65 Warning for Titanium Dioxide Struck Down

/in ,

California’s Proposition 65 warning requirement for respirable titanium dioxide violates the First Amendment, the District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled on August 12, 2025, in The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 2:23-cv-01006.

The decision is the latest in a series of rulings invalidating Prop 65 warnings for chemicals with disputed health risks. In 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck down a warning requirement for glyphosate, and in early 2025, the Eastern District of California invalidated a warning requirement for dietary acrylamide.  Blog posts on those cases can be found here and here.

The titanium dioxide order follows the same analytical framework. First, the court held that the warning failed the test set forth in Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), which allows for compelled commercial disclosures when they are “purely factual and uncontroversial.”

“[T]he parties admit that there is a clear debate over whether Listed Titanium Dioxide cases cancer in humans,” the order states.  “The Court finds the Prop 65 warning would likely improperly elevate ‘one side of a legitimately unresolved scientific debate.’”

As in the glyphosate and acrylamide cases, the court focused on how an average consumer would perceive the warning, not just whether each sentence was literally accurate.  “Even though each sentence on its own may be factually true, ‘the totality of the warning’ is nonetheless misleading,” the order states.

Second, the court found that the warning failed intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) and was therefore unconstitutional.  The court concluded that the warning does not advance California’s interest in public health because titanium dioxide’s risks are not confirmed, and the state has less burdensome alternatives—such as making information available online.

Titanium dioxide is commonly used as a whitening pigment in cosmetic and personal care products. Its Prop 65 listing applies only to “airborne, unbound particles of respirable size.”

New Mexico to Hold Webinar on PFAS Labeling on September 25

/in ,

On September 25, 2025, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) will hold an informational webinar on product labelling requirements for PFAS at 1pm MT (3pm ET).  To register, email NMED-PFAS@env.nm.gov.

Under HB212, enacted in April 2025, NMED is authorized to adopt rules requiring that manufacturers label products containing PFAS.  Earlier this month, New Mexico’s Environmental Secretary reportedly told lawmakers that NMED would soon release draft regulations to implement HB 212, including labeling requirements.

PFAS Restrictions and Reporting Under HB 212
  • Labeling authority: NMED may require PFAS labeling.
  • Phased bans: Restrictions on intentionally added PFAS begin in 2027, expand to more product types in 2028, and culminate in a ban on most products in 2032. Exemptions apply for certain products, such as medical devices, and for uses designated by NMED as “currently unavoidable.”
  • Reporting requirement: By January 1, 2027, manufacturers must report information on intentionally added PFAS, including purpose of use and amount (by CASRN).

More details are available on NMED’s PFAS webpage.

California Legislature Moves to Ban PFAS in Many Consumer Products

/in , ,

On September 12, 2025, California’s Assembly and Senate approved SB 682, a bill imposing sweeping prohibitions on the use of intentionally added PFAS in a wide range of consumer products.  The legislation now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom for consideration.

As reported in a previous post, SB 682 would prohibit the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax with intentionally added PFAS starting in 2028, and cookware beginning in 2030.

Since that earlier update, lawmakers amended the bill to exempt certain components of cleaning products until 2031.  The final version also clarifies that, beginning in 2028, cleaning products must comply with California Air Resources Board volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations without reliance on regulatory variances.

Governor Newsom has until October 12, 2025, to act on the bill.