We previously wrote several articles on the Hardwick v. 3M case that originated in Ohio state court and found its way to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for interlocutory review. In the lawsuit, plaintiff Hardwick alleges that PFAS was absorbed into his bloodstream, presenting risks of harm to human health. While the Ohio state court granted class certification of at least all residents of Ohio with detectable levels of PFAS in their blood (estimated to be over 11 million people), the case was dismissed by the Sixth Circuit Court on interlocutory appeal, as the Court found that plaintiff could not satisfy the traceability element to have standing for the claim.

The case was refiled in 2024 (aptly named Hardwick II) and on March 20, 2026, the Ohio state court allowed the case to proceed with potential certification of a class of all Ohio residents on the table. The court, however, immediately sought appellate review of its own decision from he Sixth Circuit Court, as it understood the magnitude of its decision on class certification.

The significance of the class certification ruling extends well beyond just the PFAS manufacturers and suppliers that are directly named in the lawsuit, though. Our prediction is that, if the class action lawsuit proceeds, it will open the door to similar cases being filed in other states and downstream companies eventually being added into the lawsuits. The financial impacts of this future development would be enormous to companies that did not manufacture PFAS. Companies, insurers, and investors alike must pay close attention to this case and understand the future potential risks that it poses to businesses.

Hardwick PFAS Case

Filed in 2018, the Hardwick case was noteworthy at the time due to the proposed scope of plaintiffs that plaintiffs’ counsel sought to include in the case – any U.S. citizen with detectable levels of PFAS in their blood, which is estimated to be over 95% of the U.S. population by various sources. The case was also significant because the lawsuit did not seek monetary damages. Instead, the relief sought from the court was the establishment of a medical monitoring program for affected citizens and the establishment of an independent science panel to study the effects of numerous PFAS on human health.

To anyone who is familiar with the history of PFAS litigation, the latter remedy sought will sound familiar, as Attorney Rob Bilott famously secured the now renowned “C8 Science Panel” in his PFAS litigation in West Virginia nearly two decades ago. The results of that science panel, which studied the effects of PFOA on human health, led to the landmark findings of probable links between PFOA (also known as C8) and adverse impacts on human health. It was the C8 Science Panel findings that significantly influenced litigation activity, regulatory and legislative activity with respect to PFAS, and media attention on PFAS issues.

In March 2022, the Ohio court ruled that the class of plaintiffs that will be allowed to proceed with the lawsuit is “[citizens of Ohio] who have 0.05 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum.” The Court limited the class to citizens of Ohio instead of citizens in the United States due to the fact that numerous states do not yet recognize medical monitoring as a legal cause of action, and some states do not permit lawsuits to proceed for an increased risk of disease without any proof of actual harm.

On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court overturned the state court decision in its entirety, ruling that because Hardwick presented no evidence that would allow a court or jury to trace any specific PFAS to a particular defendant, the plaintiff failed the traceability requirement to have standing to proceed in the putative class action.

Hardwick II

While the allegations and claims raised in Hardwick II are very similar to the original lawsuit, the second iteration differs in several ways in an effort to cure the issues of standing that doomed the first case. First, only three PFAS manufacturers (3M, DuPont, and Chemours) are named defendants, as opposed to the original 10 manufacturers in the first lawsuit. Further, Hardwick II only raises claims as to PFOA and PFOS, legacy chemicals largely manufactured and distributed historically by the named defendants. This differs from the first lawsuit, which named PFAS more generally (a class of chemicals with over 15,000 substances under the PFAS umbrella). Lastly, Hardwick II increases the threshold for potential class qualification to 2 parts per billion, an increase from the smaller threshold of 0.05 parts per billion from the original lawsuit. The state court found that these differences were sufficient for the case to proceed.

Hardwick II asks for the creation of a medical monitoring program for a nationwide C8 blood exposure class that includes diagnostic testing and studies to be overseen by a court-approved panel of independent scientists. It also seeks judgment against the defendants for negligence, battery and conspiracy, and requests declaratory judgment finding that the defendants are liable for injuries and equitable/injunctive relief.

Impact On Downstream Businesses

The Hardwick PFAS case is incredibly significant not only to the companies directly involved in the litigation, but also to downstream commerce entities. While the manufacturers involved in the current litigation are the immediate targets, it is not outside the realm of possibility to image companies who utilized PFAS, emitted them into the environment, and allegedly contributed to PFAS in the blood of citizens of Ohio (and other states that might be added to the class) being brought into the lawsuit, or pursued in future lawsuits similar to Hardwick II. Any decision by the Sixth Circuit to review or not review the lower court ruling and the case as a whole will continue to be closely watched by anyone involved in the PFAS litigation, most immediately to see whether the class of plaintiffs is limited in any way or potentially broadened to include other states.

CMBG3 Law is following judicial, legislative, administrative, and scientific developments relating to PFAS. More information about the services we can provide, including risk assessments, to ensure your business is ready for any intersection with these substances can be found on our PFAS Litigation page.

Our attorneys have been at the forefront of PFAS issues, including giving presentations as to the future waves of litigation stemming from PFAS issues. For more information, please contact the Chair of our PFAS Team: John Gardella.