PFAS Consumer Cases: What Recent Dismissals Signal For Future Litigation

Over the past few years, there has been an increase in litigation related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including lawsuits alleging fraud or misrepresentation about consumer products. However, many actions related to PFAS consumer fraud claims have been dismissed. Continuing the trend, recent federal rulings in PFAS consumer cases underscore defense counsel's need to evaluate whether standing could be an appropriate avenue to attack allegations on a motion to dismiss.

In September, a New York federal court dismissed with prejudice the second amended complaint for a proposed class action alleging consumers were misled by advertising that juice products had "all-natural ingredients" or were "made simply," when they allegedly contained PFAS. Lurenz v. Coca-Cola Co., 2025 WL 2773188, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2025). The court found the plaintiff lacked standing due to flawed PFAS testing, which did not show "the products tested were the actual physical Products he had purchased" or that PFAS "contamination" was "widespread" and uniform in the defendant's juice products. Id. at *4.The Lurenz court also criticized the absence of specific testing details, including where the tested product was obtained, how it was tested, and the results. Id. Without those details, the plaintiff could not show a "meaningful link" between the testing and the products he purchased. Id. at *5-6. Lurenz shows courts are skeptical of claims that require extrapolation from isolated product testing to another product, let alone across product lines or production runs, and as a result may defeat a plaintiff's ability to demonstrate injury needed for Article III standing. Further insights on the Lurenz court's analysis are available in a recent blog post by our colleague.

Last month, a Minnesota federal court also dismissed a PFAS-related consumer lawsuit involving carpet flooring. Peterson v. 3M Co., 2025 WL 2784485 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2025). The plaintiffs alleged defendants failed to disclose supposed "dangers" posed by PFAS in stain-resistant products applied to carpets manufactured and sold by third parties. Id. at *2.The court found plaintiffs failed to satisfy the "injury in fact" and traceability requirements of Article III standing. Id. at 4. As to injury in fact, the plaintiffs rested their claim that they purchased PFAS-treated carpets on a trade association report that "'most residential and commercial carpets are treated' with PFAS-based stain and soil repellents." Id. at *3. The court found that, without a plausible allegation that the plaintiffs purchased carpets treated with PFAS, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they had suffered an injury in fact. Id. Nor was the plaintiffs' potential injury traceable to the named defendants, who were not the only producers of the alleged PFAS-based carpet treatments. The Peterson court's ruling highlights plaintiffs' challenge of satisfying Article III standing requirements with respect to particular defendants and products when they allege PFAS-related injuries, given the prevalent use of PFAS and its ubiquity in the environment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.