We may not know what it stands for, but we’ve all heard of PFAS – those chemicals that are bad for you but seem to be everywhere because they make life easier in some ways.
Despite their health risks, these chemicals continue to be used in a variety of products, which has led to a surge in PFAS-related lawsuits. It started with the infamous case against DuPont in 1999. Recent litigation has broadened to include various industries, such as cosmetics and food packaging. Regulatory efforts are increasing, with the U.S. EPA proposing nationwide water testing for PFAS and states enacting bans (Maine is one).
Companies like 3M have been phasing out PFAS use amidst mounting legal pressures, but the lawsuits against continue going strong. Another class action complaint has recently been filed in a federal court in Minnesota against 3M, along with the company that is essentially DuPont (EIDP, Inc.) and the Chemours Company. Plaintiffs Vicki Peterson and Paul Sadeghi are suing on behalf of others similarly situated, alleging that the defendants manufactured, distributed, and sold products containing PFAS that were used to treat household products.
A PFAS Primer
To refresh your memory, PFAS stands for “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.” Often referred to as "forever chemicals," this is a class of thousands of human-made compounds characterized by their strong carbon-fluorine bonds. The unique chemical structure makes PFAS exceptionally resistant to degradation in the environment and difficult for the human body to metabolize or excrete.
While their stability and resistance to oil, grease, water, and heat have made PFAS valuable in various industrial applications, including the treatment of carpets for stain and soil resistance, their persistence has led to widespread environmental contamination. Studies have linked PFAS exposure to a host of adverse health effects, including cancers (such as liver, kidney, and testicular), liver diseases, developmental issues, reduced immune system responses, and hormonal disruptions. The chemicals' ability to accumulate in the human body and the environment means that their levels continue to rise, posing long-term risks to ecosystems and human health.
Despite their known hazards, PFAS have been widely used across various industries from industrial manufacturing to consumer goods. They’re used in various household products from non-stick cookware, food wrappers, waterproof or stainproof clothing, and the carpets found in homes.
Why carpets? The unique properties of these chemicals provide benefits for stain resistance, durability, and repelling water. The PFAS are applied to carpet fibers as a treatment to repel liquids, including water and oil-based substances. This treatment, known as Scotchgard, was originally developed by 3M in the 1950s and has since become a standard feature in many carpet products.
The Latest Lawsuit
Late last month, some of the companies that make PFAS products were legally called out. 3M, EIDP, and Chemours worked together to sell and distribute carpets that were treated with PFAS. In a complaint of over 355 pages, the class action plaintiffs accuse them of doing so for decades while knowing the dangers involved.
The complaint points out that these chemicals are known to cause widespread contamination of the planet and adverse health effects on people. PFAS cause extensive and persistent contamination of the environment. They are extremely stable, do not degrade easily, and accumulate in living organisms. This leads to chronic human and ecological exposures.
Once PFAS have contaminated an area or property, it is expensive to clean. PFAS need to be removed for the site to be habitable. The damage to buildings where carpets treated with PFAS have been installed requires removal and replacement of the carpets to prevent ongoing harm.
The combination of money that would go to addressing any environmental cleanup, carpet removal, and treatment of medical conditions for health issues caused by PFAS exposure adds up to a huge economic cost to the people and places affected.
Litigation to Come?
The plaintiffs claim that the defendants knew about the dangers of PFAS for decades but failed to disclose these risks, either to consumers or carpet manufacturers. They allegedly concealed the truth and misrepresented the safety of their products. The plaintiffs seek damages for the removal and replacement of PFAS-treated carpets, compensation for property damage and other related costs, as well as other forms of relief.
The lawsuit includes claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state laws related to product liability, nuisance, and consumer protection. In terms of the RICO claims, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged in a coordinated effort to hide the dangers of their PFAS products from consumers and regulators. According to the complaint, these companies formed an illegal enterprise aimed at misleading the public about the safety of their products, in violation of federal racketeering laws.
3M said in a statement: "As the science and technology of PFAS, societal and regulatory expectations, and our expectations of ourselves have evolved, so has how we manage PFAS.” It plans to defend itself in court and is open to negotiating a settlement. The other two defendants have not responded to requests for comment.
Related Resources:
- Justice Delayed for Poisoned Patriots at Camp Lejeune (FindLaw's Courtside)
- 'Forever Chemicals' Attract Growing Legal Challenges (FindLaw's Courtside)
- Teflon: News and Research (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
