Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 MAY 2026

New Frontiers In PFAS Litigation: Standing, Disclosure, Function, And The Lessons Of Cavalier v. Apple

Sheppard
Sheppard
Contributor
Sheppard

Sheppard

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more...

View firm profile
Explore more from Sheppard

In a previous article, we surveyed the growing wave of PFAS false advertising class actions sweeping industries from pet food to outdoor apparel. A ruling issued this March underscores how fast this issue...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In a previous article, we surveyed the growing wave of PFAS false advertising class actions sweeping industries from pet food to outdoor apparel. A ruling issued this March underscores how fast this issue is developing. In Cavalier et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 25-cv-00713-PCP (N.D. Cal., Mar. 16, 2026) the court allowed a PFAS false advertising class action to proceed against Apple related to the alleged presence of PFHxA in certain of its watch bands. The order provides ample material for commentary, but our focus here will be to examine four key developments that could affect the landscape of PFAS litigation going forward.

1. Standing Without Showing the Plaintiffs’ Products Were Affected

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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.

See more popular content from