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