Yoga pants are not the only clothing products that have become popular subjects of PFAS testing in the media. As some readers may recall, over the last several years, various menstrual underwear products have been tested for PFAS—a company called Mamavation tested various menstrual underwear products for PFAS and reported that “65% of products tested could be contaminated with PFAS” and testing requested by the Sierra Club also identified more than de minimis levels of PFAS in the underwear products tested.

Such reports of PFAS in menstrual underwear products have already led to multiple class action complaints filed against clothing manufacturers—one in 2020 in the Central District of California (Kanan v. Thinx, Inc., 20-cv-10341), another in 2021 in the District of Massachusetts (Blenis v. Thinx, Inc., 21-cv-11019) and yet another just this month in the Northern District of California (Rivera v. Knix Wear, Inc., 22-cv-2137).

These class action complaints are similar in that they seek to establish classes that would include any and all persons who purchased the relevant underwear products (nationwide for the first and third complaint, while the second complaint limited the proposed class to Massachusetts residents). The complaints seek injunctive and monetary relief (including punitive damages) under various theories of liability including breach of warranty, negligence – failure to warn, unjust enrichment, and various state consumer protection and fraud statutes. The most recent complaint also adds general fraud theories. Each of the complaints remain pending as of the time of publication.