PFAS Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Harmful “Forever Chemicals” in Carpets and Rugs

Since the 1950s, companies have known that PFAS in carpets could lead to cancer in children who inhale carpet dust and debris, lawsuit alleges.

Three major manufacturers of toxic chemicals used in stain resistant carpets and rugs face a class action lawsuit, alleging that they have known for decades about the harmful side effects of PFAS “forever chemicals” in their products, particularly for children who regularly crawl on and inhale carpet debris.

3M Company, DuPont and Chemours began manufacturing teflon and stain resistant carpet products as early as the 1950s, and the lawsuit alleges they have known since that time that the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) used in their products to resist grease, oil and water could build up in individuals’ bodies, and eventually lead to the development of cancer and other injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Vicki Peterson and Paul Sadeghi in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on August 30, seeking damages for themselves and other consumers who have had to replace PFAS-treated carpets and rugs in order to protect the health of themselves and their families.

PFAS Chemicals Linked to a Number of Serious Illnesses

PFAS chemicals have come under increased scrutiny in recent years, as they have been linked to many adverse health conditions, including an increased risk of testicular cancer, kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis and other side effects.

Recent studies have also highlighted that consumers can develop these side effects from multiple means of exposure, including drinking PFAS contaminated water, breathing the chemicals in air pollution and absorbing them through the skin.

According to allegations raised in the recently filed PFAS class action lawsuit, children face a particularly high risk from use of the chemicals in carpets and rugs, since they are likely to be crawling on the floor and inhaling carpet debris or dust tainted by the stain resistant treatments.

3M Company, Dupont, Chemguard, Inc. and other manufacturers already face thousands of PFAS exposure lawsuits being pursued in U.S. courts nationwide, primarily involving individuals who developed cancers and other injuries from use of the chemicals in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), which has been used by military and civilian firefighters for years to combat fuel-based fires.

Major Manufacturers Worked Together to Deceive the Public

Peterson and Sadeghi allege that 3M, Dupont and Chemours have engaged in a coordinated conspiracy to hide the dangers of PFAS from consumers, pursuing their claims under the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

The lawsuit indicates that these companies knew about the dangers posed by the PFAS chemicals they used in teflon and stain resistant carpets, and they actively colluded to keep this information from consumers for more than six decades.

3M developed the first scotchguard for fabric in the mid-1950s, using PFAS chemicals. However, Peterson and Sadeghi state in their lawsuit that at the exact same time as 3M was developing these products, the company was already aware that PFAS could bind to human blood and build up in the body, potentially leading to cancerous tumors.

Over the following decade, the lawsuit indicates that 3M also learned PFAS chemicals could harm the environment by leaching into groundwater. However, the company has maintained they never knew about the dangers of their products to humans for years, and refused to identify which specific chemicals are included in stain resistant carpets and rugs.

Peterson and Sadeghi claim that by 1979, 3M Company and Dupont were sharing information with one another about the dangers of PFAS “forever chemicals” in their products, due to potential risks to company employees. However, they were not making that information available to the public.

Kris Hansen, a former 3M chemist, has already claimed that her own research for the company in the 1990s proved 3M knew of PFAS dangers for years, but refused to take any action based on this knowledge. In fact, this new lawsuit indicates that the company actively suppressed Hansen’s research and refused to allow her to speak about it.

“3M’s and Old DuPont’s efforts to suppress knowledge of the harms of PFAS began as soon as evidence of its toxicity began to emerge, when they marked scientific studies and related documents as ‘confidential,’ withholding their disclosure in spite of the obvious public interest and evidencing an awareness of legal liability,” Peterson and Sadeghi said in the complaint.

September 2024 PFAS Lawsuit Updates

3M and Dupont already face a number of class action lawsuits and individual injury claims stemming from their manufacture and use of PFAS chemicals. However, there are increasing signs that these existing claims are only the tip of the iceberg for PFAS lawsuits likely to be filed in the coming years.

One of the most frequently cited causes for PFAS exposure in pending lawsuits involves the inclusion of the chemicals in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), which has caused firefighters to be directly exposed to the chemicals, and also resulted in widespread drinking water contamination in communities near military bases, airports and other locations where AFFF leached into the water supply.

More than 8,000 AFFF lawsuits have already been filed in the federal court system, all alleging that the companies failed to disclose the serious health risks they knew about from the PFAS chemicals contained in the foam.

To manage the rapidly growing litigation, all lawsuits over PFAS in AFFF brought in U.S. District Courts nationwide are currently centralized and consolidated for pretrial proceedings before U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel in the District of South Carolina, due to common questions of fact and law that have been presented in all of the claims.

As part of the coordinated management of the litigation, a small group of early AFFF trial dates are expected to start in 2025, to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that will be repeated throughout the litigation.