Of the emerging litigation topics across America, one of the more burdensome on our judicial system involves PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Though PFAS have been around since the mid-20th century, they have recently exploded as a source of litigation. The purpose of this article is twofold: to take a look at recent developments in PFAS litigation since the publication of A brief primer on PFAS litigation: Trends and future disputes in 2022, and to provide an overview of how—thus far—plaintiffs have succeeded (or failed) in developing legal theories.
Litigation Summary — Multi-district Litigation (MDL)
Currently, the epicenter of PFAS litigation is the ongoing MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, where nearly 10,000 PFAS cases have been consolidated (9,896 pending claims as of November 1, 2024). The MDL centers on claims of PFAS-contaminated groundwater in cities across America, caused by the seeping of specialized aqueous film-forming foam used for firefighting, known as “AFFF” or “A-Triple F.” Though the sheer number of cases involved may suggest otherwise, the MDL is limited only to PFAS contamination caused by AFFF. And notably, rural communities who rely on well water are not in the MDL. After years of percolating through the court, 2025 is slated as the year to test several bellwether cases: kidney and testicular cancer cases, which are set for October 2025, and “Telomer Water Provider” cases (the latter having a March 2025 presumptive trial date that did not materialize). Summary judgment and Rule 702 motion rulings are likely to be the next development as the trial dates approach.
MDL — Partial Settlement
As the trial deadline approaches, so too does the pressure to settle. Some of the claims in the AFFF MDL were resolved with settlements surpassing $11 billion. The settlement with PFAS-manufacturer 3M contained several limitations concerning water suppliers, and as discussed in Bloomberg Law by Thompson Coburn Partner Suzanne Galvin, as part of the 3M settlement, “a water utility, which opts into the settlement, can’t demand more money from the [settling] company” for litigation involving the same issues in the future. Even with such an astronomical settlement, the “peace at any price” method may not last long: AFFF claims only represent a fraction of the existing types of PFAS compounds. And even excluding the AFFF compounds at issue in these cases, over 9,000 PFAS compounds remain. The lure of high-settlement offers and existence of a bevy of other compounds are likely to entice future PFAS-inspired lawsuits.
Broader PFAS Litigation Trends
Firefighting foam is just the tip of the PFAS iceberg. Unsurprisingly, lawsuits nationwide span a wide range of theories and industries. Initially, plaintiffs primarily sued the PFAS manufacturers, such as 3M, DuPont/Chemours, and Tyco. Plaintiffs then added lawsuits against “downstream” commercial manufacturers who used PFAS during the manufacturing process, and against other entities that plaintiffs claim introduced PFAS in the stream of commerce as retailers of a product containing a PFAS compound. Food and food packaging are frequent targets, as are beauty products—but PFAS litigation spans a wide range of products, from clothing and carpet to tampons and baby wipes.
Plaintiffs’ Lack of Traction
With the science and legal theories surrounding PFAS far from settled, it comes as no surprise that plaintiffs have experienced difficulty determining their best theories of liability, a flaw common with pattern litigation. Many PFAS cases have experienced early dismissals—through early settlement or otherwise—and relatively few have made it past the motion-to-dismiss stage and are proceeding with discovery. In fact, of one hundred PFAS cases in the Appendix below that Thompson Coburn recently surveyed, only twenty-two remain active—and only eight of those are currently proceeding past the motion-to-dismiss stage. Further, of the dismissed cases, only three involved class settlements. While the list of one hundred cases in the Appendix is not exhaustive, it provides a helpful representative sample of how plaintiffs have fared in these types of cases.
For example, class actions were filed in Illinois and Southern California against McDonald’s and Burger King, alleging contamination from PFAS used in fast food packaging to prevent french-fry grease from leaking through fry cartons and to prevent melted cheese from sticking to burger wrappers. Before the courts could rule on the restaurants’ respective motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed both cases (McDonald’s with prejudice, Burger King without prejudice)—leaving unresolved the restaurants’ raised issues of lack of standing, federal preemption, and failure to plead with specificity. And plaintiffs were left without any hope of a big payout from class certification.
Meanwhile, in New York, plaintiffs sued Ornua Foods, alleging that PFAS in butter packaging migrated into the company’s Kerrygold Butter. The plaintiffs brought breach-of-warranty and unjust-enrichment claims, as well as claims under various state consumer-protection statutes. Their general theory was that the presence of PFAS made claims that the butter was “pure” misleading. But the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice in August 2024 after the court allowed all but their claim for injunctive relief to proceed, and before any class was certified.
One ongoing case, a purported class action, was filed in late 2022 against Post Consumer Brands LLC and The J.M. Smucker Company alleging that they misled consumers by including healthful labeling statements on pet food products containing titanium dioxide as an ingredient. Plaintiffs further allege that the products’ packaging contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS). Discovery is ongoing in the case, which is now on a third amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is currently due in mid-2025.
Another ongoing purported class action involves Prime Hydration LLC. Plaintiffs alleged that Prime sports drinks contained PFAS, and that its labeling and marketing were misleading. In May 2024, the court held that the plaintiffs did have standing, but otherwise dismissed all of their claims except for breach of implied warranty. Prime then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which has been fully briefed since December 2024. If the court denies that motion, discovery and class-certification briefing will likely take place late in 2025. As shown in the Appendix below, several other ongoing cases have class-certification deadlines in early 2026.
Litigation Challenges for Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The broad scope of ongoing cases in large-scale litigation like this offers a distinct advantage to defense attorneys: it reveals the common legal theories that plaintiffs are relying on across the country, as well as the hurdles that plaintiffs face.
In these types of PFAS cases, Plaintiffs typically rely on three theories of liability: (1) nuisance, (2) fraud/breach-of-warranty and/or consumer-protection statutes, and (3) medical monitoring. However, as illustrated by the many dismissals noted in the Appendix of cases below, plaintiffs have encountered hurdles such as lack of standing, lack of product-specific testing, heightened pleading requirements for fraud and consumer-protection statutes, and—in some states—the inability to bring medical monitoring claims without a present physical injury. Yet, the sheer number of cases being filed—and the ever-expanding list of products involved—indicates that PFAS litigation, much like the chemicals it centers around, will likely last for years to come.
Parallel to Opioid Litigation
Experienced litigators detect a direct parallel here to Opioid litigation, where plaintiffs began with a nuisance claim (in part, to enable plaintiffs to seek equitable remedies) against opioid manufacturers, and then worked down the list of other available defendants in an attempt to recover from retailers and other seemingly less-responsible parties. (See recent success in opioid litigation in Ohio based on nuisance theories.) Because opioid plaintiffs frequently struggled to link these other defendants’ conduct with the alleged harm, nuisance claims often failed, forcing plaintiffs to turn to other legal theories.
Similarly, plaintiffs in PFAS litigation have often failed to link alleged PFAS contamination to a particular defendant’s products or operations, or have failed to link a defendant’s actions to the alleged harm. For example, in Suez Water v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., the court dismissed the plaintiff’s nuisance claims, citing insufficient evidence that the defendant knew about the manufacturers’ use or disposal of PFAS. The court found that the defendant had only introduced a lawful product into market, and had not played a substantial role in creating the nuisance. Declining to heap liability on any defendant for engaging in lawful business practices, the court refused to set a precedent for punishing any defendant who had minimal involvement in introducing PFAS to the market.
Recently, plaintiffs have turned to medical monitoring—a relatively new claim in the context of PFAS litigation. Notably, under medical monitoring theories, plaintiffs allege that early detection of diseases could deter future illness; they do not allege an actual present injury. Instead, the theory is that some substance has produced subcellular changes that increase the risk of future disease, necessitating medical monitoring. The states are split into three roughly equal camps when it comes to allowing medical monitoring claims: some states allow medical monitoring claims without proof of present physical injury[1], other states reject such claims[2], and the remaining states are either divided on the issue or have yet to address it.[3]
One state that recently rejected this theory was New Hampshire, after a winning argument by Thompson Coburn LLP’s John Galvin before the state supreme court. As John Galvin persuasively argued, “you can’t sue someone because you might get sick in the future. It’s after you’ve sustained an injury that you have a cause of action, a claim against someone.” The truth is, Galvin continued, testing everyone for PFAS would show that “in excess of 95% of the folks in America are going to have some level of PFAS in their system. If every one of those people, therefore, has standing to bring a lawsuit against everyone involved in using PFAS over the years, [we are] going to have runaway lawsuits.”
To be sure, other states have recognized such a remedy, inviting negative unintended consequences. That is because “[o]ur civil justice system is not very well equipped to handle something like this. We’re very good when somebody’s got an actual injury, and they think there’s an actual cause, and we go into court and decide if that person’s entitled to money. But when our civil justice system tries to go in and solve public health issues on a broader scale, we have a record of not doing a very good job with that,” John Galvin informed the Connecticut Law Tribune.
Issues With Testing
PFAS testing methods also continue to evolve. Certain types of PFAS can be identified through a “targeted” analytical method involving liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. Although this method accurately measures concentration levels, it is expensive and can only detect a few dozen of the thousands of different PFAS compounds. Another available testing method involves measuring “total oxidizable precursors.” But this method is also expensive, and is even more labor-intensive. Because these two testing methods are so expensive and time-consuming, lower-cost alternatives have been developed that measure “total organic fluorine” as a sort of proxy for total PFAS contamination. But these cheaper, faster methods suffer from numerous limitations. For example, some of these alternative methods are unable to distinguish between organic and inorganic fluorine, or are unable to detect specific PFAS types. Some cannot even accurately distinguish between PFAS and other substances. Further, measuring “total organic fluorine” is less sensitive than the more targeted testing methods.
Testing frequently plays a key role at the outset of cases involving alleged PFAS contamination. Courts closely scrutinize allegations regarding testing for the presence of PFAS in the product a plaintiff purchased, or in the plaintiff’s body; a lack of testing or deficient testing provides an easy way for courts to dismiss a case for lack of standing because there is no injury in fact. And for the cases that have made it past the motion-to-dismiss stage, the topic of PFAS testing methods will play a prominent role as parties begin to address the cases’ merits and develop expert testimony. These issues will only compound throughout the year, with discovery closing in late 2025 in some cases, and expert deadlines due in early 2026.
Looking to the Future — Prepare Now
Looking ahead, it is likely the scope of PFAS litigation will only expand, particularly in states that allow medical monitoring claims even without proving present physical injury. Through trial and error, plaintiffs are sure to get more creative—both in their legal theories and who they bring cases against. Thus, companies should take proactive steps to assess how PFAS might impact their operations. This includes reviewing state and federal regulations; conducting thorough assessments of products, processes, and supply chains for the presence of PFAS; and documenting their findings. To manage potential liability, companies will need to deepen their understanding of the presence of PFAS in their operations and adjust corporate strategies accordingly.
The risk of PFAS-related litigation even extends to transactional law. In the context of mergers and acquisitions, companies should recognize that PFAS liability is another risk to consider when evaluating deals, and should factor those risks into negotiations. Additionally, they should work with legal and risk-management teams to identify, insure, and mitigate PFAS-related liabilities. Finally, companies should assess indemnity issues and ensure they have appropriate insurance coverage in place to address the potential financial implications of PFAS litigation. Finally, companies should be prepared to address the PFAS problem once identified, else they could face lawsuits for failing to act despite having knowledge about PFAS contamination in their products.
Policy Considerations
PFAS is ubiquitous. An estimated 98% of the U.S. population have detectable concentrations of PFAS in their blood. At this point, identifying the source of the PFAS in each person—in other words, finding the responsible party—is an impossible task. And unlike with opioids, which can be traced in discrete pill form, PFAS compounds permeate an array of products, packaging, and even drinking water. Holding opioid manufacturers and retailers liable in court was a monumental task; to do so with PFAS may prove even more difficult. The already burdened court system may also buckle under the undue burden PFAS litigation places upon it. This begs the question: is this just a situation where the societal issue to be addressed only serves to make certain MDL plaintiffs’ counsel wealthy? If plaintiffs’ stated goal is health and safety—and not just a payout—then policymakers should be the ones to address PFAS, perhaps by taking the burden off the court system and handling the PFAS problem through legislation, not litigation.
[1] States that allow medical monitoring despite a lack of present physical injury include Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia.
[2] States that reject medical monitoring without present physical injury include Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin
[3] States that have unclear or divided law on the subject include Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming.
Click here to view recent PFAS cases
| Case Name | Court | Case No. | Date Filed | Product | Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) or Voluntary Dismissal | Active? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrews v. Procter & Gamble Co. | C.D. Cal. | 5:19-cv-00075 | 2019-01-11 | Oral-B dental floss | MTD granted 6/3/2019 with leave to amend. Show cause order re lack of prosecution, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed individual claims with prejudice, class claims without prejudice | No |
| Ambrose v. Kroger Co. | N.D. Cal. | 3:20-cv-04009 | 2020-06-16 | disposable plates | N/A, defendant filed an answer then the parties entered into a class settlement (injunctive relief only, did not release monetary claims by absent class members) | No |
| Nguyen v. Amazon.com Inc. | N.D. Cal. | 4:20-cv-04042 | 2020-06-17 | disposable plates | No answer filed, plaintiff stopped communicating, case dismissed without prejudice | No |
| Allahverdi et al v. Thinx Inc. | C.D. Cal. | 2:20-cv-10341 | 2020-11-12 | Thinkx menstrual underwear | MTD granted in part 6/23/2021, plaintiff filed amended complaint, then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in light of nationwide class settlement in Dickens v. Thinx | No |
| Blenis et al v. Thinx, Inc. | D. Mass. | 1:21-cv-11019 | 2021-06-18 | Thinkx menstrual underwear | Nationwide class settlement prior to ruling on MTD (following mediation in two related cases). Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in light of nationwide class settlement in Dickens v. Thinx | No |
| Onaka v. Shiseido Americas Corp. | S.D.N.Y. | 1:21-cv-10665 | 2021-12-14 | makeup | MTD granted 3/19/2024, amended complaint filed, voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after 2nd MTD was briefed | No |
| GMO Free USA v. Cover Girl Cosmetics | D.C. Super. Ct. | 2021-CA-4786-B | 2021-12-20 | Oral-B dental floss | MTD granted 6/1/2022, appeal dismissed per stipulation of the parties | No |
| Gruen et al v. The Clorox Company et al | N.D. Cal. | 3:22-cv-00935 | 2022-02-15 | Burt’s Bees products | Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice (class claims without prejudice) after MTD was briefed | No |
| Davenport v. L’Oreal USA Inc | C.D. Cal. | 2:22-cv-01195 | 2022-02-22 | makeup | Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before any responsive pleading | No |
| Little v. Naturestar North America, Inc., et al | E.D. Cal. | 1:22-cv-00232 | 2022-02-24 | plastic food storage bags | MTD amended complaint granted in part 9/11/2024, defendant answered second amended complaint. Fact discovery cutoff August 2025, expert disclosures due September 2025, motion for class cert due February 2026 | Yes |
| Dawood v. Gamer Advantage | E.D. Cal. | 2:22-cv-00562 | 2022-03-08 | FogAway anti-fog spray | MTD granted in part 8/4/2022, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed individual claims with prejudice and class claims without prejudice after court denied MTD | No |
| Hicks et al. v. L’Oreal U.S.A., Inc. | S.D.N.Y. | 1:22-cv-01989 | 2022-03-09 | waterproof mascara | MTD granted in part 9/19/2024. Discovery ongoing, fact discovery cutoff November 2025, expert discovery cutoff March 2026, and motion for class cert due in March 2026 | Yes |
| Solis v. Coty, Inc., et al | S.D. Cal. | 3:22-cv-00400 | 2022-03-25 | CoverGirl cosmetics | MTD granted 3/7/2023 w/leave to amend, plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice | No |
| Spindel v. Burt’s Bees, Inc. et al | N.D. Cal. | 3:22-cv-01928 | 2022-03-25 | Burt’s Bees products | N/A – consolidated with 3:22-cv-00935 | No |
| Clark et al v. McDonald’s Corp. | S.D. Ill. | 3:22-cv-00628 | 2022-03-28 | food wrappers | MTD granted in part 3/27/2023, transferring to N.D. Ill. | No |
| McDowell v. McDonald’s Corp. | N.D. Ill. | 1:22-cv-01688 | 2022-03-31 | food wrappers | Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 1/8/2024 while MTD was pending | No |
| Brown v. Coty, Inc. | S.D.N.Y. | 1:22-cv-02696 | 2022-04-01 | CoverGirl cosmetics | Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Cover Girl, Coty’s MTD granted 3/1/2024 | No |
| Anderson et al v. Almay, Inc. et al | S.D.N.Y. | 1:22-cv-02722 | 2022-04-01 | makeup | Stayed due to bankruptcy, no responsive pleading filed, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice | No |
| Rivera et al v. Knix Wear, Inc. | N.D. Cal. | 5:22-cv-02137 | 2022-04-04 | menstrual underwear | N/A – plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice while MTD was pending | No |
| Barrett et al v. The Clorox Company et al | N.D. Cal. | 3:22-cv-02193 | 2022-04-07 | Burt’s Bees products | N/A – plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before any responsive pleading | No |
| Vega v. L’Oreal USA Inc. | D.N.J. | 2:22-cv-02049 | 2022-04-08 | makeup | N/A – plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before any responsive pleading | No |
| Hussain v. Burger King Corp. | N.D. Cal. | 4:22-cv-02258 | 2022-04-11 | food wrappers | N/A – plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after defendant filed motion to compel arbitration or transfer to S.D. Fla. | No |
| Collora v. McDonald’s Corp. | N.D. Ill. | 1:22-cv-01904 | 2022-04-13 | food wrappers | N/A – closed due to consolidation | No |
| Cooper v. Burger King Corp. | S.D. Fla. | 1:22-cv-21150 | 2022-04-14 | food wrappers | N/A – parties discussed consolidation with another case in N.D. Cal., then plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 6/14/2022 | No |
| Lupia v. Recreational Equipment, Inc. | N.D. Cal. | 3:22-cv-02510 | 2022-04-25 | outdoor apparel | N/A – plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before any responsive pleading | No |
| Hamman v. Cava Group, Inc. | S.D. Cal. | 3:22-cv-00593 | 2022-04-27 | food packaging | MTD first amended complaint granted in part 2/8/2023 with leave to amend, MTD second amended complaint denied 12/4/2023, parties filed joint motion to dismiss with prejudice 4/12/2024 | No |
| Richburg v. Conagra Brands, Inc. | N.D. Ill. | 1:22-cv-02420 | 2022-05-06 | microwave popcorn | MTD granted with prejudice on 2/8/2023 | No |
| Ruiz v. Conagra Brands, Inc. | N.D. Ill. | 1:22-cv-02421 | 2022-05-06 | microwave popcorn | MTD granted with prejudice on 2/8/2023 | No |
| Cauchi et al v. LOreal USA, Inc. | S.D.N.Y. | 1:22-cv-03926 | 2022-05-13 | makeup | Consolidated with Hicks et al. v. L’Oreal U.S.A., Inc. – MTD granted in part 9/19/2024 | Yes |
| Dickens v. Thinx Inc. | S.D.N.Y. | 1:22-cv-04286 | 2022-05-25 | Thinkx menstrual underwear | Nationwide class settlement prior to responsive pleading (following mediation in two related cases) | No |
| Seidl v. Artsana USA, Inc. | E.D. Penn. | 5:22-cv-2586 | 2022-07-01 | car seats | MTD granted 11/30/22 without prejudice w/leave to amend (except warranty claims, which were dismissed with prejudice for lack of pre-suit notice) – plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed | No |
| Baez v. The Clorox Company et al | E.D.N.Y. | 1:22-cv-03990 | 2022-07-07 | Burt’s Bees products | N/A – transferred to N.D. Cal. | No |
| Baez v. The Clorox Company et al | N.D. Cal. | 3:22-cv-05218 | 2022-07-07 | Burt’s Bees products | N/A – consolidated with Gruen v. The Clorox Company et al. | No |
| Dalewitz v. Procter & Gamble Co. | S.D.N.Y. | 7:22-CV-07323 | 2022-08-26 | Oral-B dental floss | MTD granted 9/22/2023 w/leave to amend, first amended complaint filed 11/13/2023, leave granted to amend again, briefing ongoing re MTD second amended complaint | Yes |
| GMO Free USA v. Procter & Gamble Co. | D.C. Super. Ct. | 2022-CA-4128-B | 2022-09-12 | Oral-B dental floss | MTD granted 7/3/2023, court denied request for leave to file amended complaint | No |
| Walker v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. | E.D.N.Y. | 2:22-cv-05557 | 2022-09-16 | Snapple / Nantucket Nectar drinks | MTD granted 7/16/2024 w/leave to amend, dismissed when no amended complaint was filed | No |
| Krakauer v. REI | W.D. Wash. | 3:22-cv-05830 | 2022-10-28 | raincoats | MTD granted 3/29/2024 without prejudice, plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 4/17/2024 | No |
| Humphrey v. J.M. Smucker Company | N.D. Cal. | 3:22-cv-06913 | 2022-11-04 | pet Food | MTD granted in part on 5/22/2023 w/leave to amend. Case proceeding, motion for class certification due 10/15/2025, close of fact discovery 11/24/2025, trial set for 9/21/2026 | Yes |
| Toribio v. The Kraft Heinz Company | N.D. Ill. | 1:22-cv-06639 | 2022-11-29 | Capri Sun juice drinks | MTD amended complaint filed 4/21/2023, then case settled, individual claims dismissed with prejudice | No |
| Clark v. Meyer Corporation, U.S. | N.D. Cal. | 3:23-cv-00581 | 2022-12-13 | cookware | N/A – plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice shortly after answer was filed answer | No |
| Lurenz v. The Coca-Cola Company et al | S.D.N.Y. | 7:22-cv-10941 | 2022-12-28 | juice drink | MTD granted 6/10/2024, amended complaint filed 7/10/2024, 2nd MTD fully briefed 11/18/2024, still pending | Yes |
| Smith v. Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. | E.D.N.Y. | 2:23-cv-00373 | 2023-01-19 | fruit smoothies | N/A – plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before complaint was served | No |
| Bedson v. BioSteel Sports Nutrition Inc. | E.D.N.Y. | 1:23-cv-00620 | 2023-01-27 | sports drinks | MTD second amended complaint terminated without prejudice due to bankrupcty stay, parties then stipulated to dismissal without prejudice | No |
| Esquibel v. Colgate | S.D.N.Y. | 1:23-cv-00742 | 2023-01-27 | mouthwash | MTD second amended complaint pending since 7/18/2024 | Yes |
| Winans v. Ornua Foods North America Inc. | E.D.N.Y. | 2:23-cv-01198 | 2023-02-14 | butter | MTD granted in part 4/23/2024, plaintiff dismissed with prejudice on 8/14/2024 | No |
| Hernandez v. The Wonderful Company, LLC | S.D.N.Y. | 1:23-cv-01242 | 2023-02-14 | pomegranate juice | First MTD granted on 12/29/23, second MTD granted in part 11/25/24. Case proceeding, motion for class cert due January 2026, fact discovery cutoff 30 days after decision on class cert | Yes |
| Bounthon et al v. Procter & Gamble Co. | N.D. Cal. | 3:23-cv-00765 | 2023-02-21 | Tampax tampons | MTD second amended complaint granted in part 10/15/2024, MTD third amended complaint filed 12/9/2024, hearing scheduled for July 2025 | Yes |
| Lowe et al v. Edgewell Personal Care Co. | N.D. Cal. | 3:23-cv-00834 | 2023-02-24 | Playtex tampons | Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 3/10/2025 while case was stayed pending outcome of MTD in related case. | No |
| Mack et al v. Edgewell Personal Care Co. | N.D. Cal. | 3:23-cv-00837 | 2023-02-24 | Playtex tampons | Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 3/10/2025 while case was stayed pending outcome of MTD in related case. | No |
| Bohen v. ConAgra Brands, Inc. | N.D. Ill. | 1:23-CV-1298 | 2023-03-02 | fish | MTD granted in part and denied in part on 3/25/2024, parties reported reaching settlement on 11/5/2024 and plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice | No |
| Didwania v. Hexclad Cookware, Inc. | C.D. Cal. | 2:23-cv-05110 | 2023-06-27 | cookware | N/A – dismissed without prejudice by stipulation on 12/22/2023 | No |
| Santiago v. Campbell Soup | N.D. Cal. | 3:23-cv-03295 | 2023-06-30 | Pop Secret microwave popcorn | N/A – settled individual claims before responsive pleading, class claims dismissed without prejudice | No |
| Tate et al v. Wm. Bolthouse Farms Inc. | E.D. Cal. | 1:23-cv-01038 | 2023-07-12 | fruit juice smoothies | MTD second amended complaint 10/10/2023, pending for six months before case settled. Individual claims dismissed with prejudice 5/15/2024, class claims dismissed without prejudice. | No |
| Garland v. The Children’s Place Inc | N.D. Ill. | 1:23-cv-04899 | 2023-07-23 | school uniforms | MTD granted (have standing but failed to state a claim), plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice rather than file motion for leave to amend | No |
| Castillo v. Prime Hydration LLC | N.D. Cal. | 3:23-cv-03885 | 2023-08-02 | sports drinks | MTD granted in part 9/9/2024. Case ongoing – briefing complete for motion for judgment on the pleadings, waiting disposition | Yes |
| Boyd et al v. Target Corporation | D. Minn. | 0:23-cv-02668 | 2023-08-29 | “Target Clean” beauty products | MTD denied 9/25/2024, answer filed 11/8/2024, motions to stay and certify interlocutory appeal denied 1/30/2025, case procceding – motion for class cert due October 2025 | Yes |
| Spencer et al v. Knix Wear, Inc. et al | S.D.N.Y. | 1:23-cv-07823 | 2023-09-01 | Knix menstrual underwear | Nationwide class settlement approved 4/24/2024 prior to responsive pleading ($2 million fund for class member reimbursement, approx. $490,000 for attorney’s fees) | No |
| Foster et al v. Citrus World, Inc. | N.D. Cal. | 3:23-cv-04785 | 2023-09-18 | orange juice | MTD briefed, court issued show cause order re plaintiffs failure to identify product at issue and to meet and confer as ordered. Plaintiffs had to pay defendant’s attorney’s fees, then voluntarily dismissed with prejudice (class claims without prejudice) | No |
| Brown v. The Brita Products Company | C.D. Cal. | 2:23-cv-07851 | 2023-09-20 | water filters and dispensers | MTD granted 9/30/2024, now on appeal in Ninth Circuit | Yes |
| Hoffnagle et al v. The Connecticut Water Co. | Conn. Super. Ct. | UWY-CV23-6073994-S | 2023-10-18 | Public drinking water | MTD amended complaint pending, filed 12/27/2024 | Yes |
| Julian v. Only What You Need, Inc. | S.D.N.Y. | 7:23-cv-09522 | 2023-10-30 | protein products | MTD and motion for leave to amend pending | Yes |
| Brewer et al v. The Period Company | C.D. Cal. | 2:23-cv-09526 | 2023-11-10 | TPC reusable period underwear | Answer filed 1/30/2024, no MTD, case settled 2/26/2024 | No |
| Barnes et al v. KOS, Inc. | S.D.N.Y. | 7:23-cv-10104 | 2023-11-16 | protein powder | MTD amended complaint pending, fully briefed 10/1/2024 | Yes |
| Kueck et al v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co. | N.D. Cal. | 4:23-cv-05962 | 2023-11-17 | Purina pet food | MTD terminated as moot due to amended complaint, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after amended complaint filed | No |
| Elseroad v. Boston Foundry, Inc. | W.D. Texas | 1:23-CV-1449 | 2023-11-27 | cookware | MTD granted in part and denied in part on 7/10/2024. – plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 4/7/2025 | No |
| Endres v. Newell Brands, Inc. | C.D. Cal. | 2:24-cv-00952 | 2023-12-29 | Yankee Candle products | Removed 2/2/2024. MTD granted in part 5/14/2024 w/leave to amend. Case proceeding – motion for class cert due June 2025, trial set for September 2026. Parties report discussing settlement and requested 90-day extensions to all deadlines | Yes |
| Richards v. Luv N’ Care Ltd et al | C.D. Cal. | 2:24-cv-00956 | 2024-01-05 | sippy cup products | Removed 2/2/2024, MTD first amended complaint granted 6/7/2024, second amended complaint 6/24/2024, remanded by stipulation due to lack of standing 8/14/2024 | No |
| Morton v. Health-Ade LLC | S.D.N.Y. | 7:24-cv-00173 | 2024-01-09 | kombucha drinks | MTD filed 8/14/2024, then dismissed with prejudice due to settlement | No |
| Schoeps et al v. Davids Natural Toothpaste, Inc. | N.D. Cal. | 3:24-cv-01978 | 2024-04-01 | toothpaste | No MTD filed. Motion for judgment on the pleadings filed 1/22/2025, hearing set for June 2025, motion for class cert due August 2025 | Yes |
| Deng et al v. Kudos Innovations, Inc. | D. Mass. | 1:24-cv-10845 | 2024-04-02 | diapers | No MTD filed – settled 6/26/2024. Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice (class claims without prejudice). | No |
| Lowry et al v. Brumis Imports, Inc. | S.D.N.Y. | 1:24-cv-02544 | 2024-04-03 | nonstick cookware | No MTD filed – – dismissed without prejudice after second amended complaint filed | No |
| Aronstein v. Kenvue, Inc., et al | D.N.J. | 3:24-cv-04665 | 2024-04-08 | band-aids | Consolidated complaint filed 3/10/2025, no responsive pleadings yet | Yes |
| Moultrie v. Johnson & Johnson | D.N.J. | 3:24-cv-04757 | 2024-04-10 | band-aids | Transferred to D.N.J., consolidated under Aronstein v. Kenvue Inc. | No |
| Maketa v. Target Corp., et al | N.D. Cal. | 3:24-cv-02576 | 2024-04-30 | up & up bandaids | MTD granted 9/26/2024 w/leave to amend, plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice | No |
| Gudgel v. Target Corp., et al. | M.D. Fla. | 6:24-cv-00870 | 2024-05-08 | up & up bandaids | MTD filed 9/3/2024, denied as moot due to amended complaint, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after filing amended complaint | No |
| Castle v. Johnson & Johnson | D.N.J. | 3:24-cv-06090 | 2024-05-13 | band-aids | Transferred to D.N.J., consolidated under Aronstein v. Kenvue Inc. | No |
| Hawes v. Mead Johnson & Company LLC | N.D. Cal. | 3:24-cv-02930 | 2024-05-14 | Enfamil infant formula | No MTD filed – voluntarily dismissed with prejudice (class claims without prejudice) | No |
| Butler v. BIC USA Inc. | N.D. Cal. | 4:24-cv-02955 | 2024-05-15 | razors | MTD filed 8/12/2024, then plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice | No |
| Saedi v. Coterie Baby, Inc. | S.D.N.Y. | 1:24-cv-03893 | 2024-05-20 | diapers | MTD granted 10/3/2024 without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction | No |
| Watkins et al v. RiseWell LLC | N.D. Cal. | 5:24-cv-03529 | 2024-06-11 | toothpaste | N/A – dismissed without prejudice 7/29/2024 before responsive pleading | No |
| Bullard et al v. Costco Wholesale Corp. et al | N.D. Cal. | 3:24-cv-03714 | 2024-06-20 | Kirkland baby wipes | MTD granted with leave to amend 2/14/2025, MTD amended complaint pending, fully briefed 4/4/2025 | Yes |
| Saputo et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al | S.D. Cal. | 3:24-cv-01117 | 2024-06-27 | band-aids | Transferred to D.N.J., consolidated under Aronstein v. Kenvue Inc. | No |
| Goodman v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. | S.D.N.Y. | 1:24-cv-06813 | 2024-09-09 | condoms | MTD filed 12/20/2024, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice (class claims without prejudice) while MTD was pending. | No |
| Beckles v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC et al | E.D.N.Y. | 1:24-cv-06412 | 2024-09-12 | K-Y lubricant products | MTD filed 12/16/2024, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice while MTD was pending | No |
| Ecological Alliance LLC v. Edgewell Personal Care Brands LLC | Cal. Super. Ct. | 24STCV25239 | 2024-09-30 | Carefree menstrual liners | N/A- P voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after show cause order re lack of service | No |
| Bourne v. CVS Health Corp. et al | N.D. Cal. | 3:24-cv-06899 | 2024-10-02 | CVS-branded bandaids | N/A – voluntarily dissmised without prejudice before any responsive pleading | No |
| Donalya, et al. v. Flumigo Technology, Inc., et al. | N.D. Cal. | 4:24-cv-06991 | 2024-10-04 | vaping products | MTD filed, case then settled and was dismissed MTD | No |
| Erickson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. | N.D. Cal. | 3:24-cv-07032 | 2024-10-07 | Huggies baby wipes | MTD filed 12/2/2024, dismissed as moot due to amended complaint, MTD amended complaint fully briefed 3/18/2025 | Yes |
| Dauod et al v. Zuru LLC et al | C.D. Cal. | 2:24-cv-09737 | 2024-10-22 | water baloons | Removed 11/12/2024, MTD filed 12/19/2024, remanded 3/12/2025 | No |
| Mohamed v. The Hershey Company | C.D. Cal. | 2:24-cv-10248 | 2024-10-24 | bubble gum wrappers | removed 11/26/2024, MTD filed 12/20/2024, case remanded 1/21/2025 | No |
| Parish v. The Hershey Company | M.D. Pa. | 1:24-cv-01868 | 2024-10-29 | chocolate bar wrappers | No MTD yet, amended complaint filed 4/21/2025 | Yes |
| Dominici v. The Hershey Company | C.D. Cal. | 2:24-cv-09414 | 2024-10-31 | chocolate packaging | N/A – case voluntarily dismissed 2/4/2025 | No |
| Nettle et al v. The Hershey Company | M.D. Pa. | 1:24-cv-01891 | 2024-11-01 | chocolate bar wrappers | N/A – consolidated with 1:24-cv-01868 on 1/31/2025 | No |
| Santos v. The Hershey Company | S.D. Fla. | 1:24-cv-24375 | 2024-11-07 | chocolate packaging | N/A – voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 2/4/2025 | No |
| Cundiff v. Shaw Industries Group, Inc. et al | E.D. Tenn. | 1:24-cv-00362 | 2024-11-14 | carpeting | MTD granted in part 3/14/2025, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after show cause order re filing amended complaint | No |
| Badilla v. Johnson & Johnson | D.N.J. | 3:24-cv-10521 | 2024-11-15 | band-aids | Case consolidated with 3:24-cv-04665 on 1/22/2025 | No |
| Montgomery et al v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. | E.D. Tenn. | 1:24-cv-00380 | 2024-12-06 | carpeting | N/A – plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 3/17/2025 | No |
| Beekman v. The Hershey Company | M.D. Pa. | 1:24-cv-02234 | 2024-12-24 | chocolate bar wrappers | N/A – case consolidated with 1:24-cv-01868 on 1/31/2025 | No |
| Gonzalez v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. | C.D. Cal. | 2:24-cv-11234 | 2024-12-31 | smartwatch wristbands | N/A – case dismissed with prejudice due to settlement | No |
| Tyndall v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. et al | E.D. Cal. | 1:25-cv-00048 | 2025-01-10 | disposable tableware | N/A – MTD due 5/2/2025 | Yes |
