About a year ago, we wrote regarding a PFAS consumer fraud lawsuit brought against Apple alleging that its smartwatches contained PFAS, which deceived consumers because the watches were marketed as promoting human health, being environmentally sustainable, and suitable for everyday use and wear. Upon testing, the watches were found to have various types of PFAS. Plaintiffs allege that they were therefore deceived by Apple, and never would have purchased the product if they knew that they contained PFAS.

On March 16, 2026, a California federal judge issued a significant ruling allowing most of a proposed class action lawsuit to proceed. Specifically, claims of fraudulent concealment, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), false advertising, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) survived Apple’s Motion to Dismiss, while claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and implied warranty of merchantability were dismissed. One of the primary issues addressed in arguments and by the Court was whether or not plaintiffs’ product testing results were reliable, at least insofar as they pertained to PFAS content in the smartwatches at the Motion to Dismiss stage. The Court found the testing results reliable and compelling enough to survive the Motion to Dismiss. 

Perhaps most notably, Apple had attempted to prevent plaintiffs from pursuing a potential class of nationwide plaintiffs, arguing that a much more limited class of a subset of California residents was appropriate. The Court, however, disagreed, and allowed plaintiffs to pursue a potential class significantly larger than merely California residents. The contours of the class will play out at the class certification phase of the litigation, but this ruling is significant in that it permitted an extremely broad class certification pursuit.

Conclusion

Several major companies now find themselves embroiled in litigation focused on PFAS consumer fraud, false advertising, consumer protection violations, and deceptive statements made in marketing and other public statements. While some cases have been dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss stage, several others, such as the Dominique Cavalier and Kiley Krzyzek v. Apple Inc. case, are proceeding in courts in several states in the U.S. Companies must consider the possibility of needing to defend lawsuits involving plaintiffs in numerous states for products that contain PFAS. It should be noted that these lawsuits would only touch on the marketing, advertising, ESG reporting, and consumer protection type of issues. Separate products lawsuits could follow that take direct aim at obtaining damages for personal injury for plaintiffs from consumer products. In addition, environmental pollution lawsuits could seek damage for diminution of property value, cleanup costs, and PFAS filtration systems if drinking water cleanup is required.

It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in the consumer products industry evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate PFAS at an ever-increasing pace. Similarly, state level EPA enforcement action is increasing at a several-fold rate every year. Now, the first wave of lawsuits take direct aim at the consumer products industry. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but merely utilized PFAS in their manufacturing processes, are therefore becoming targets of costly enforcement actions at rates that continue to multiply year over year. Lawsuits are also filed monthly by citizens or municipalities against companies that are increasingly not PFAS chemical manufacturers.

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 – Toxic Torts Team: John Gardella.

Dominique Cavalier and Kiley Krzyzek v. Apple Inc.,