The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson entities and Kenvue, Inc. concerning the presence of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in Band-Aid products on grounds of standing. This case, Jo Aronstein, et al. v. Kenvue, Inc. et al., is one of many class action lawsuits that have been filed in recent years concerning PFAS in consumer products and offers some insight into how courts are approaching these suits in various jurisdictions.

The initial suit was filed in April 2024, with multiple similar pending actions consolidated by the court in January 2025, resulting in a Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed in March 2025 (the “Complaint”). The Complaint was ultimately amended to contain fifteen counts, including breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment, with various other state-specific claims on behalf of state subclasses incorporated therein. Plaintiffs alleged that: (1) they purchased Band-Aid brand products believing they were safe for use on skin and near open wounds; (2) usage instructions were followed; (3) they relied on Defendants’ packaging and ingredient list to make purchasing decisions; (4) they were unaware that Band-Aid products contained harmful levels of PFAS; (5) independent testing confirmed Band-Aid products contain PFAS; (6) Plaintiffs would not have purchased these products or would have paid significantly less for these products had they known they contained dangerous levels of PFAS. Plaintiffs provided the results of independent laboratory studies of Band-Aid brand products which showed the presence of PFAS in these products at levels “well beyond the limitations set forth by the government on drinking water” as evidence that PFAS is present at harmful levels.

Plaintiffs alleged that they had standing under the “benefit of the bargain” theory. This theory allows a pleading for economic injury by alleging that Plaintiffs bargained for a product worth a given value but received a product worth less than that value. Plaintiffs in this case asserted that because the Band-Aid products containing PFAS were worth less than they would have been were they free from defects (the presence of PFAS), Plaintiffs were denied the benefit of their bargain. Defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Plaintiffs did not allege adverse health consequences from using these products, nor did they allege that the bandages did not work to cover wounds as intended. As such, the court found that Plaintiffs had not identified a specific misrepresentation that induced their purchase and that Plaintiffs’ claims ultimately failed under the benefit of the bargain theory.

The Court also found that Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to support claims of Defendant’s misrepresentation. Plaintiffs pointed to various statements made by Defendants, including: “(1) ‘Better Ingredients, Better Processes’; (2) ‘Every piece of material in our BAND-AID Brand bandages... are chosen with safety as the top concern’; and (3) ‘Our scientists ensure the safety and efficacy of our products through clinical studies and laboratory models’” as statements which would lead a reasonable consumer to believe that these products were made with safe ingredients. The court found it persuasive, however, that none of these statements directly related to the presence of PFAS in Band-Aid products and that these statements could still be true, even in the presence of PFAS.

As a result, the court ultimately found that Plaintiffs did not have Article III standing to bring the instant case. The court also found that Plaintiffs had not sufficiently made allegations to allow them to prevail under alternative theories of standing, such as the premium price (misrepresentations caused them to overpay) or alternative product (they would have purchased an alternative product had they known of the presence of PFAS) theories. The court also found that Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief failed because any risk of future harm from using Band-Aid products containing PFAS was speculative. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiffs were expressly afforded the opportunity to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies the court addressed in its memorandum opinion.

This case offers insight into the type of evidence and the specificity of pleadings necessary to demonstrate standing in PFAS consumer product cases. Although the court did not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ argument concerning the presence of PFAS at allegedly harmful levels, it was persuaded by the lack of evidence to support Plaintiffs’ assertion that actual harm directly resulted from the presence of PFAS in Band-Aid brand products. Should Plaintiffs elect to move forward with amending their complaint, this case could offer critical insights into the treatment of PFAS in consumer products in the future.  

Share | Email| Print| Comments|  Topics: Class Actions, Contamination, Drinking Water, New Jersey, PFAS, Pollutants, Standing, Water