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. Read More »

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

A federal district court in Massachusetts recently issued companion decisions addressing the “useful product defense” in the context of biosolids that contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).  In twin orders dated December 30, 2025, the court held that biosolid pellets, or “biopellets”—which are produced from treated wastewater solids and used as fertilizer—are “useful products,” providing a defense to liability under Massachusetts’s analogue to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Class Actions, Contamination, Drinking Water, Massachusetts, Negligence, Nuisance, PFAS, Pollutants, Water

Earlier this month, a federal district court in California certified a class claiming economic injury caused by alleged misrepresentations regarding pet food ingredients.  The class alleges that the pet food advertises its ingredients as healthful when in fact the products contained allegedly harmful chemicals, including PFAS. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, Causation, Class Actions, Damages, PFAS, Standing

On April 21, 2022, in Tomas Vera et al. v. Middlesex Water Co. (MID-L-6306-21, Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County), a New Jersey Superior Court judge granted plaintiffs’ motion for certification in a case stemming from PFAS contamination of the county’s water supply.  Defendant Middlesex Water Co. (“Middlesex”) sent notices to customers on October 22, 2021 and November 8, 2021 advising that testing showed levels of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (“PFOA”) of 36.1 parts per trillion, well above the 14 parts per trillion maximum contaminant level (“MCL”) standard set by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”).  The notices further advised of health concerns potentially associated with PFOA, recommended that customers with “specific health concerns, a severely compromised immune system, have an infant, are pregnant or are elderly” seek advice from a health care provider, and recommended installing a home water filter to reduce levels of PFOA in the tap water or use bottled water for drinking, cooking, or preparing beverages for infants. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Class Actions, Contamination, Drinking Water, Injunction, Medical Monitoring, New Jersey, PFAS, Water

Recently, there has been an explosion of litigation involving per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) contamination.  In SUEZ Water New York Inc. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., No. 20-CV-10731 (LJL), 2022 WL 36489, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2022), a federal district court dismissed PFAS related contamination claims against four Delaware corporate defendants:  E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (“Old DuPont”), The Chemours Company (“Chemours”), DuPont de Nemours, Inc (“New DuPont”), and Corteva, Inc. (“Corteva”) (collectively “Defendants”).  The court dismissed the Complaint against New DuPont and Corteva due to lack of personal jurisdiction over each defendant.  Although the court found that personal jurisdiction existed over Old DuPont and Chemours, it ultimately still dismissed the Complaint against these defendants due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against each of them. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Causation, Drinking Water, Negligence, New York, Nuisance, Personal Jurisdiction, PFAS, Strict Liability, Successor Liability, Trespass

In two recent decisions, courts have continued to preclude “classic” tort claims without proof of a current symptomatic condition and to place substantial limits on medical monitoring clams under state common law. In Benoit v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, No. 17-3941 (2d Cir. 2020), the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss medical monitoring damages based on personal injury but cast significant doubt of the viability of such relief in the absence of any physical manifestation of exposure.  And in Letart v. Union Carbide Corporation, No. 2:19-cv-00877 (S.D. W.Va. 2020), the Court granted a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ common law claims but allowed medical monitoring claims related to ethylene oxide (“EtO”) emissions to proceed, yet without addressing or determining whether the plaintiffs can meet the evidentiary requirements for such claims.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Medical Monitoring, PFAS, Second Circuit, Toxic Torts

On January 15, 2020, Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed two groups of private plaintiffs’ claims against the United States Navy regarding perfluorocarbon contamination, PFOS and PFOA, in drinking water supplies around former Navy facilities in Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania. Giovanni v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, No. 16-4873, 17-765, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2020 WL 224683 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2020). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cancer, CERCLA, Class Actions, Contamination, Damages, HSCA, Medical Monitoring, Pennsylvania, PFAS, Superfund, Third Circuit, Toxic Torts

Earlier this month, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied motions to dismiss filed by 3M Company, DuPont, Chemours, and other chemical companies in a putative class action lawsuit relating to exposure to PFAS chemicals. Hardwick v. 3M Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-1185 (S.D. Ohio). The court held that the named plaintiff had properly alleged an injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing and Ohio law by claiming that he was exposed to PFAS chemicals and that PFAS have been linked to negative health outcomes, despite arguments by the chemical companies that he had not suffered an actual, compensable injury.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Class Actions, Medical Monitoring, Ohio, PFAS, Sixth Circuit, Toxic Torts