PFAS False Advertising Class Actions: A Growing Threat Across Industries

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—commonly known as PFAS—have become one of the most fertile grounds for class action litigation in the United States. What began as a focused wave of environmental contamination suits has evolved into a broad and aggressive campaign of false advertising class actions targeting manufacturers and retailers across virtually every consumer-facing industry. Companies that market their products as “natural,” “healthy,” “sustainable,” or “safe” now face serious litigation exposure—even when PFAS were never deliberately added to their products at all.

Understanding the scope of this trend, and what companies can do about it, is essential for any business operating in today's regulatory and litigation environment.

A Wave Sweeping Every Industry

As the use of PFAS has grown, PFAS class actions have expanded well beyond their origins in firefighting foam and industrial contamination. In the clothing sector, outdoor retailer REI, Gore-Tex manufacturer W.L. Gore & Associates, and women’s underwear brands Thinx and Knix have been sued for use of PFAS in their clothing while marketing them as environmentally friendly or sustainable. Fast-food giants McDonald's and Burger King, Hershey’s, as well as cosmetics companies like Burt's Bees and L'Oréal, have all faced similar suits.

The common thread in these cases is not that companies marketed their products as “PFAS-free,” but rather that they used broad health, safety, or sustainability language, such as “100% Natural,” “safe,” or “eco-friendly.” Plaintiffs argue these terms impliedly promise the absence of PFAS. As new state testing and reporting laws generate a steady stream of data for plaintiffs to exploit, the filings show no signs of slowing—especially in jurisdictions friendly to false advertising class actions like California.

Courts have demonstrated increasing willingness to let these claims survive. Most recently, in January 2026, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick certified a class of California consumers in Jeruchim et al. v. The J.M. Smucker Co., No. 22-cv-06913 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2026). In that case, the plaintiff argued that pet food products were deceptively marketed as “100% complete and balanced” despite packaging that allegedly contained PFAS. The court held that Smucker need not have explicitly labeled its products as "PFAS Free" for an assumption of PFAS-free status to arise in the mind of a reasonable consumer. Where the rest of the packaging asserts health and nutritional benefits, the omission of PFAS information itself may potentially be deceptive.

This is not to say companies are defenseless. Companies have found success in fending off PFAS class action litigation where the plaintiffs could not show the specific products they purchased contained PFAS or where affirmative marketing representations about health or the environment were absent or innocuous. Thus, in Garland v. The Children's Place Inc, No. 1:23-cv-04899 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2024) the court held that a company’s silence on the issue was not enough to show consumer deception. More on the Garland case and Sheppard’s representation of the defendant can be found here.

The Problem No One Intended: PFAS in the Supply Chain

One of the most challenging aspects of PFAS litigation is that it can target companies who did not deliberately add these chemicals to their products. PFAS can enter the supply chain through raw materials, inputs, and processes that manufacturers use. In other words, the presence of PFAS in a product may be entirely unknown to the company manufacturing it.

Class action litigation in the agricultural biosolids context illustrates this vividly. Biosolids are the nutrient-rich byproduct of wastewater treatment and often marketed to farmers as eco-friendly fertilizer. Yet, biosolids are now understood to be a significant vector of PFAS contamination. Biosolid fertilizers often carry high concentrations of PFAS even after treatment because wastewater from industrial and municipal sources contains PFAS from countless household and commercial products. Yet the companies processing and marketing biosolids typically had no intention of including PFAS in their products; the chemicals were simply present in the waste streams they processed.

The same logic applies to food packaging, athletic wear, and virtually any product where PFAS may enter through the manufacturing inputs, coatings, inks, or raw materials provided by third-party suppliers. According to the EPA, approximately 60% of all sewage sludge produced annually in the United States is spread on agricultural land — meaning PFAS can ultimately make their way into crops, livestock, and finished food products with no intentional action by any manufacturer in the chain.

What Companies Can Do to Protect Themselves

While the PFAS litigation landscape is challenging, companies are not without options. A proactive approach across marketing, supply chain management, and legal compliance can meaningfully reduce exposure.

• Audit marketing language. Terms like “safe,” “natural,” “healthy,” “non-toxic,” “clean,” and “sustainable” are the primary targets of PFAS class actions. Companies should review all product labels, websites, and advertising collateral and consider replacing broad categorical claims with narrower, substantiated statements describing specific sustainability measures taken, or identifying the specific natural ingredients.
• Where feasible, test products and supply chain inputs. Companies that have tested and can demonstrate low or no PFAS levels are in a substantially better position to defend or deter litigation. If PFAS are found, companies can undertake to identify the source and make changes.
• Implement supply chain PFAS controls. Where possible, require suppliers to disclose and certify PFAS content in materials, inks, coatings, and other inputs. Contracts should include representations and indemnification provisions related to PFAS. 
• Monitor and comply with state laws. More than 20 states have enacted or are actively considering laws restricting PFAS in consumer products, food packaging, apparel, and other goods. California, New York, Maine, and Minnesota are currently among the most active. 
• Be careful with certifications. Courts have permitted PFAS claims against companies whose products carried third-party certifications — such as OEKO-TEX or “organic” labels. Companies should understand exactly what their certifications cover and ensure advertising does not overstate the scope of any certification.

The PFAS litigation environment is evolving rapidly, and the plaintiffs’ bar is becoming more sophisticated. A risk assessment of current marketing practices, potential supply chain vulnerabilities, and relevant regulatory requirements is far less costly than defending a certified class action. Whether your company makes food, fertilizer, apparel, or consumer goods, the time to assess your exposure is now.

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.