Tag Archive for: PFAS in Products Litigation

Lawsuit Challenges “Organic” Claims on PFAS-Containing Soil Products

/in ,

A proposed class action lawsuit in California federal court targets Kellogg Supply Inc., arguing that the soil and fertilizer company falsely represents products as “organic” despite containing PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS.

According to the October 29, 2025, complaint, multiple organic-labeled Kellogg products contained levels of specific PFAS that exceed EPA screening thresholds.  Under EPA guidance, these levels “could trigger further action or study under [the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)].”

The plaintiffs contend that “PFAS do not fall within any definition of organic.”  Kellogg’s use of organic labeling “induce[s] consumers into believing that the Products contain only naturally occurring, non-synthetic ingredients and are therefore a superior alternative to competing—and less expensive—products that are not labeled as organic,” the lawsuit states.

While Kellogg’s packaging displays a certification logo from OMRI, a third-party organic certifier, the plaintiffs allege this certification contradicts OMRI’s own standards.  According to the complaint, the certification was granted only because “OMRI does not test for PFAS as part of their process.”

The complaint addresses a common weakness in similar litigation by specifying that the plaintiffs’ own purchased products were among those tested and that proper chain-of-custody procedures were followed.  Judges in other cases have dismissed claims due to inadequate connections between products purchased and laboratory samples.

The lawsuit seeks to represent consumers in California and New York under those states’ consumer protection and false advertising laws.

The case is Valdez v. Kellogg Supply, Inc., No. 25-cv-02917 (S.D. Cal.), filed 10/29/2025.

Court Dismisses PFAS False Advertising Suit Against Coca-Cola – What Lessons Should Be Learned?

/in ,

On September 29, 2025, the Southern District of New York dismissed a PFAS false advertising suit against Coca-Cola over its Simply juice products, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing and failed to show a link between third-party PFAS testing and his actual purchases.  The court found no plausible economic or benefit-of-bargain injury.  The plaintiff alleged that Simply juices were falsely marketed as “All Natural” despite the presence of PFAS.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege the tested samples were from his purchases or that PFAS presence rendered the products less valuable.  Relying on precedents such as TransUnion v. Ramirez and Axon v. Florida’s Natural Growers, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of standing.

The ruling reinforces that PFAS consumer mislabeling cases must connect laboratory testing to specific purchases and articulate a concrete injury to survive dismissal.  So, what lessons should be learned?

1. Laboratory Testing Link

Courts are dismissing PFAS mislabeling cases when the plaintiff fails to connect the specific product they purchased to the lab-tested sample.  Merely alleging that “testing of similar products” revealed PFAS, without tying that testing to the actual unit or batch purchased, is often viewed as too speculative.

2. Concrete Injury Requirement

Under TransUnion v. Ramirez and Spokeo v. Robins, plaintiffs must show a concrete, particularized injury, not just an abstract statutory violation or moral objection.  In PFAS suits, courts have required plaintiffs to allege:

  • That they overpaid for a product falsely marketed as “PFAS-free” or “non-toxic,” and
  • That the product they actually bought contained PFAS in measurable amounts.

Where plaintiffs only claim “fear of exposure,” “diminished value,” or cite general environmental harms, dismissal for lack of Article III standing is common.

3. Evidentiary and Pleading Implications

To survive Rule 12(b)(6):

  • Plaintiffs must plead chain-of-custody facts linking test results to the purchased item (e.g., same UPC, batch code, or manufacturing lot).
  • They should specify PFAS analytes and concentrations, not just allege “detectable PFAS” or presence of total organic fluorine.
  • Plaintiffs often rely on third-party advocacy testing (e.g., Mamavation, Environmental Working Group), but courts treat those as insufficient when plaintiffs fail to link the test results to the specific products they purchased.
4. Practical Takeaway for Defendants and Counsel

For companies facing PFAS labeling suits, early motions to dismiss can succeed by emphasizing:

  • Lack of product-specific testing linkage;
  • Lack of concrete injury or economic harm;
  • Compliance with trace-level detection limits (e.g., parts-per-trillion levels with no safety threshold exceeded).

The case is Lurenz v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 7:22-cv-10941 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 12/28/2022.  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.

Apple Moves to Dismiss Watch Band PFAS Suit

/in ,

A proposed class action alleging that Apple Watch bands contain PFAS should be dismissed for lack of standing, Apple told the District Court for the Northern District of California on April 14, 2025.

The plaintiffs in Cavalier v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-713, claim that a published study detected PFHxA (a type of PFAS) and “significantly elevated levels of fluorine” in Apple Watch bands, despite Apple’s “health and environmental promises to the contrary.”  The complaint alleges violations of California’s unfair competition law and false advertising law, as well as various fraud claims.

In its motion to dismiss, Apple argues that the plaintiffs failed to link the study results—which were anonymized—to specific Apple products.  “The [study] does not show that Apple Watch bands contain PFAS generally, nor that the particular Watch bands purchased by Plaintiffs contain PFAS,” the motion states, alleging that the complaint fails to plead an injury in fact.

Apple also objects to the plaintiffs’ characterization of PFHxA as “a dangerous form of PFAS that pose significant harms to people and the environment.”  Apple argues that the plaintiffs “provide no evidence” that PFHxA in particular has adverse health effects, and contends that they attempt to “blur the distinctions among PFAS chemicals and create a toxic scare where none exists.”

In addition, Apple argues that its advertising claims—which include statements like “[t]he ultimate device for a healthy life”—are vague and nonspecific and cannot serve as the basis for the plaintiffs’ fraud claims.

The suit is one of several recent cases targeting consumer products alleged to contain PFAS, as plaintiffs increase scrutiny of so-called “forever chemicals” in everyday items.  A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for July 31, 2025.

Gore-Tex Maker Faces PFAS Greenwashing Allegations

/in , ,

A proposed federal class action has been filed against W.L. Gore & Associates, accusing the company of systematically misleading customers about the sustainability of its widely used Gore-Tex Fabric.

The February 11 complaint alleges that Gore-Tex is produced using PFAS, chemicals that pose “extremely dangerous health and environmental effects” and allegedly shed from Gore-Tex during ordinary use.  Despite this, the plaintiffs argue that Gore markets the fabric as “non-toxic and safe for the user” and “environmentally sound,” creating a false impression about its safety and sustainability.

“Instead of coming clean on its use of PFAS and their environmental consequences, Gore…embark[ed] on a significant greenwashing campaign full of material misrepresentations and omissions designed to deceive eco-conscious consumers and safeguard Gore’s profits,” the complaint states.

The suit also challenges “[Perfluorinated Chemical (PFC)]* Free Laminate” claims on tags affixed to Gore-Tex products.  According to the complaint, the claim “misconstrues the common definition of the term ‘PFC’ by unilaterally excluding well-known PFC-based chemicals, such as PTFE and ePTFE,” which are PFAS allegedly used to make several Gore products—despite efforts by the company to phase out their use.

The plaintiffs allege that Gore’s practices violate laws in 28 states and DC, including consumer protection, fraudulent concealment, and unfair competition laws.  They seek damages, disgorgement, and an order enjoining Gore from continuing its allegedly unlawful business practices.

The suit comes shortly after Maryland’s Attorney General sued Gore in December 2024, alleging that Gore knowingly “polluted the air and water around its facilities with” PFAS.  Additionally, in 2022, a former employee sued Gore over health effects allegedly stemming from PFAS exposure.

Gore-Tex is used in a variety of companies’ outdoor apparel, including outerwear and athletic shoes.  According to the complaint, Gore-Tex has a 70% market share in the waterproof-breathable textile market.

The case is Mason v. W.L Gore & Associates, No. 2:25-cv-49 (E.D. Wash.).

Class Action Targets 3M and Chemours for Suppressing PFAS Risks in Carpeting

/in

Two Minnesota consumers who own PFAS-treated carpeting have sued 3M and Chemours, alleging that the chemical companies collaborated for decades to suppress information about the health and environmental risks of PFAS.

According to the complaint, the defendants knew that PFAS were dangerous as early as the 1950s but knowingly withheld evidence of their harms from EPA and the public.  The plaintiffs allege that when these companies shifted from using long-chain PFAS like PFOA and PFOS to shorter-chain variants like GenX and PFBS, they baselessly claimed that the shorter-chain variants were safer.  And even after many carpet manufacturers and retailers stopped making and selling carpeting containing PFAS, the complaint states that the defendants “continued to lie about the harms caused by [these] products.”

Products made by the defendants were used to treat carpets to make them stain- and soil-resistant.  However, the suit claims that carpet manufacturers were unaware that these products were dangerous, in part due to false or misleading safety data sheets provided by the defendants.  The proposed class action seeks to represent all persons who had carpeting installed prior to 2020, alleging that the defendants’ PFAS products were applied to “virtually all carpets manufactured in the United States” until that year.

The proposed class action’s claims are partially based on internal company documents released through other litigation, including a 2018 settlement reached between 3M and Minnesota over PFAS contamination in drinking water.  That case unearthed documents allegedly showing that 3M discouraged its scientists from discussing the chemicals in writing and stymied research efforts, despite knowledge that PFAS were severely toxic and widely present in human blood.

More large settlements were reached last year.  But the defendants “have not paid a dime for the grievous harms caused by carpets in homes and day-care centers infused with PFAS,” said the plaintiffs, who are seeking damages to replace contaminated carpeting.  These alleged harms include property damage resulting from PFAS emissions from the carpets, which reportedly continue throughout the carpet’s lifespan.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act as participants in a scheme to conceal PFAS harms for commercial gain.  The suit’s 127 counts also include a myriad of state law claims, including strict products liability and nuisance claims.

The complaint also includes allegations against PFAS manufacturer Daikin, which is not named as a defendant.

The case is Peterson v. 3M Co. (D. Minn.), No. 0:24-cv-0349.

Coca-Cola Asks Judge to Dismiss Simply Juice PFAS Suit

/in ,

A proposed class action alleging that Coca-Cola’s Simply-brand juices contain PFAS does not state a plausible claim for relief, Coca-Cola told the Southern District of New York on July 31, 2024.

The plaintiff in Lurenz v. The Coca-Cola Co. alleges that laboratory testing revealed “widespread and uniform” PFAS contamination in Simply juices at levels detrimental to human health.  As a result, the claims made on Simply products—including that the beverages are “All Natural” and “made simply” with “all-natural ingredients”—would mislead a reasonable consumer, the most recent complaint asserts.

The court dismissed the initial complaint for lack of standing in June, but allowed the plaintiff to file a new complaint.  In response, Coca-Cola filed a letter requesting a conference before the company files another motion to dismiss.  The letter argues that the new complaint’s allegations are “even vaguer” than those previously dismissed, making it “impossible to tell” when the plaintiff purchased the contested products.  The plaintiff “still cannot show a concrete economic harm needed to establish Article III standing,” Coca-Cola says.

In addition, Coca-Cola argues that the new complaint still provides insufficient factual detail about the testing that revealed PFAS contamination, which was a factor in the earlier dismissal.  Even if the testing allegations are deemed sufficient, Coca-Cola asserts that the all-natural claims are not misleading.  “[N]o reasonable consumer would understand PFAS—a substance that is not intentionally added to the [juices]—to be an ingredient,” the letter states.

The case is similar to an ongoing suit against L’Oréal, the cosmetics company, for alleged PFAS contamination.  A blog post on that case, written after a dismissal due to standing issues, can be found here.

Maine PFAS Law Triggers Class Action Against BIC in California

/in , ,

Customers in California have filed a class action lawsuit against BIC USA, Inc. (“BIC”), a razor manufacturer, over allegations of PFAS use discovered through BIC’s compliance with a Maine PFAS reporting law.

In 2021, Maine enacted legislation requiring companies to disclose whether their products contain intentionally added PFAS by January 1, 2023.  Although a subsequent law extended this deadline to 2025, some companies had already submitted PFAS information to Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection.  According to the complaint, a Freedom of Access Act request by a public advocacy group revealed that BIC had disclosed the use of PFAS as a lubricant in its razor blades.

The plaintiffs argue that they would not have purchased BIC razors for the price they paid had they known they contained PFAS.  Without a disclosure to the contrary, the complaint asserts that “[n]o reasonable customer would expect that shaving razors would contain dangerous PFAS, which are indisputably linked to harmful health effects in humans.”

The lawsuit alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, among other claims.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

The Maine legislature substantially revised the state’s PFAS reporting requirements in April, discussed in a previous blog post.  Under the amended law, reporting requirements will only apply to “currently unavoidable uses” starting in 2032.

The case is Butler v. BIC USA Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 4:24-cv-02955, filed May 15.

Case Update: Motion to Dismiss Granted in PFAS Lawsuit Against L’Oreal

/in

In March 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed against L’Oreal U.S.A., Inc. for alleged violations of state consumer protection laws related to the failure to disclose PFAS in their waterproof mascara products. The complaint alleged that L’Oreal violated numerous consumer protection laws, including New York General Business Laws 349 and 350, against fraudulent and misleading advertising by failing to disclose that its waterproof mascara products contain PFAS. (Verdant Law published a detailed blog post on the litigation, which can be found here.)

In a recent ruling on September 30, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted L’Oreal’s motion to dismiss the case. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing, as they didn’t sufficiently prove that the specific mascaras they purchased contained PFAS.

The plaintiffs based their claims on a 2021 University of Notre Dame study that found high fluorine levels in various cosmetic products, including waterproof mascaras, commonly advertised as long-lasting or wear-resistant. Plaintiffs did not allege or provide any evidence that the Notre Dame study had included a review of any L’Oreal products.

The plaintiffs also conducted their own study, alleging that the L’Oreal mascaras tested had PFAS levels above the EPA’s lifetime Health Advisory Level (the health advisory level is the amount of PFAS that is most certain not to cause harmful human effects if consumed over a lifetime). Nonetheless, the court found these allegations lacking in specific details, such has how many samples were tested and if all samples tested were positive for PFAS. Nor, according to the court, did the study link the findings to the actual products purchased by the plaintiffs. The court dismissed the case without prejudice and with leave to amend.

PFAS Class Action Brought Against Sports Drink Company

/in ,

A consumer class action lawsuit has been filed against Biosteel Sports Nutrition, Inc. in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the company’s BioSteel Blue Raspberry flavored sports drink contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). Defendant’s products are marketed as healthy sports drinks, using language such as “clean, quality ingredients,” “designed with sustainability in mind,” “no artificial flavors/colors,” and “good for you and the environment.” The product packaging additionally claims that the product is “highly regarded for its premium ingredients and zero sugar formula.”

Plaintiffs claim that based on this language, they believed the product to be a healthy sports drink, but the presence of PFAS directly contradicts Biosteel Sports Nutrition’s marketing claims. The suit alleges violations of the New York General Business Law § 349, et seq., which prohibits deceptive acts and practices in business, violations of New York General Business Law § 350, et seq. prohibiting false advertising, breach of express warranty, fraud, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment.

On August 4, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Plaintiff’s testing of its product was insufficient to demonstrate that PFAS substances are present in its products. The motion claims the testing allegations are “devoid of any details regarding the methodology or sample used.” Additionally, according to Biosteel Sports Nutrition, this information was not within the complaint or the amended complaint.