2022 saw many consumer class actions filed based on PFAS. It felt as if no category of consumer good was spared. Here are some examples:

• Food and Food Packaging. Two class action complaints were filed against McDonalds in the Southern and Northern districts of Illinois. One of the complaints alleges: “[E]ach time an American buys a Big Mac, they are exposed to high levels of PFAS.” A similar suit filed against Burger King was later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Illinois is no stranger to PFAS suits. Class action complaints were also filed in the Northern District of Illinois regarding BOOMCHICKAPOP- and Orville Redenbacher-branded microwave popcorn. These two cases focus on statements contained on the popcorn’s packaging. One states “Real, Simple Ingredients. Nothing Fake.” The other states “only real ingredients” and “100% ingredients from natural sources.”

• Cosmetics. A proposed class action complaint was filed against The Clorox Company and The Burt’s Bees Products Company claiming that several mascara and lip gloss products contain PFAS based on testing performed by Mamavation.
• Clothing. Reports of PFAS in menstrual underwear products have led to multiple class action complaints filed against clothing manufacturers. While suits against Thinx were filed in 2020 and 2021, Knix joined the list in 2022, with a PFAS-based complaint filed in the Northern District of California.

Thinx recently reached a class action settlement. Potential class members can submit a claim online for reimbursement for $7 each for at most three pairs of underwear they purchased or a voucher for 35% off a single purchase of up to $150.

Knix has gone on offense, filing a motion for sanctions arguing that the plaintiffs’ attorneys improperly filed their lawsuit based solely on unreliable testing from “Mamavision,” which the plaintiffs’ attorneys did not independently confirm. The company argued: “Plaintiffs and their counsel . . . have no idea whether any Knix product actually contains fluorine or not, let alone the specific type of fluorine (organic fluorine) that can potentially indicate the presence of PFAS. Indeed, they conducted no independent investigation whatsoever to even attempt to confirm the truth of that assertion.”

• Car Seats. A proposed class action complaint was filed the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Chicco USA, Inc. alleging that certain children’s car seats contain fabrics containing PFAS according to testing performed by The Ecology Center. The court dismissed the complaint, beginning its analysis by noting that the law does not recognize a duty to disclose chemicals used to treat car seats: “To put it simply, the law does not place any obligation on [manufacturers] to proactively disclose to consumers what, if any, chemicals it uses to treat its car seats.”