Judge Tosses PFAS Carpet Class Action for Lack of Standing
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.