In February 2025, three law firms from Seattle, Minnesota, and New York boldly filed a Class Action Lawsuit against W. L. Gore & Associates, the manufacturer of the well-known rainproof product “Gore-Tex.” The lawsuit, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, centers on allegations from four plaintiffs who claim fraud, misrepresentation, and violations of the consumer protection acts across 28 states.[i] They argue that Gore-Tex is deceivingly marketed as an environmentally friendly waterproofing membrane used in a range of products, including raincoats, hiking boots, and other outdoor apparel. The plaintiffs allege that “Gore offers not much more than empty environmental promises” stating that “greenwashing is the act of making false or misleading statements about the environmental benefits of a product…”[ii] The plaintiffs contend in their 138-page complaint that they were misled into paying a premium for garments that contain hazardous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals,” which pose serious risks to both health and the environment.

On April 28, 2025, the defense filed a motion to dismiss, effectively arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit in the Eastern District of Washington. The motion points out that only one of the four plaintiffs resides in Washington and purchased a Gore-Tex product online, while the others bought their items in San Francisco, Minnesota, and Illinois. The defense rightfully contends that the plaintiffs base their claims on vague allegations, asserting that the product’s packaging or advertisements failed to disclose the presence of PFAS. They emphasize that any claims regarding the concealment of harmful chemicals are unfounded, as the plaintiffs claim they would have refrained from purchasing or paying a premium for these products had they been adequately informed. Although the plaintiffs reference three studies from the Environmental Protection Agency supporting their claims about the dangers of PFAS, the defense points out that these studies do not mention Gore-Tex or any of the specific products purchased by the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the defense argues that this lawsuit relies on mere speculation without substantive evidence.

This “greenwashing” lawsuit reflects a growing national trend. We’ve seen a range of similar claims, such as a lawsuit against Target in Minnesota for allegedly overusing its “Target Clean” label and a suit against Tyson Foods in D.C. for misleading statements about its beef products’ environmental impact. In January, Proctor & Gamble faced legal action for allegedly misrepresenting its Charmin toilet paper’s sustainability efforts.

Analysis

As their lack of residency in Washington undermines their case, Gore-Tex’s legal defense team possesses compelling arguments for dismissing the claims of three of the out-of-state plaintiffs. While the defense may face challenges arguing against jurisdiction based merely on their location outside the state of Washington, their strongest argument lies in demonstrating that the plaintiffs’ claims are speculative. Federal district courts have consistently dismissed similar greenwashing lawsuits when the allegations lacked factual support. Favorable rulings for the defense have also occurred in federal courts in New York.

The court is set to review the defendant’s motion to dismiss concerning Gore-Tex this July. I am confident the court will dismiss the claims against the three out-of-state plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds. If the remaining plaintiff from Washington can present concrete evidence supporting liability against Gore-Tex, the court may reject the motion to dismiss his claims. However, if this plaintiff fails to substantiate his case, I fully expect the court to dismiss his claims as well.

Takeaway

Historically, defendants achieve more favorable outcomes with dispositive motions in Federal Court compared to Washington State Court. It is noteworthy that the plaintiffs chose to file their lawsuit in Federal Court rather than pursuing other avenues, which could impact the trajectory of this case.

If this case were filed in Washington state court, I am confident that the court would determine the Plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently notifies the maker of Gore-Tex of the claims, allowing the case to move forward. In contrast, federal courts take a more rigorous approach, thoroughly scrutinizing the basis of claims against a defendant and swiftly dismissing those founded on speculation and conjecture. Therefore, it is a strategic decision for defense counsel to remove the case to federal court when: 1) it meets the diversity and amount in controversy requirements, and 2) there is a strong expectation that the case will involve significant motions practice.

Keep Reading

Why I Chose to Become an Attorney Salty Situation: Class Action Lawsuit Against Salt Manufacturer Alleges Improper Levels of Heavy Metals You’re Out? Additional Litigation Uncertain After Judge Denies Certifying Class of Ex-NCAA Baseball Players Grow Your Legal Practice with Returning Clients and Referrals Strategic Anchoring: Using Cognitive Bias to Win Negotiations Laughing Gas Is No Laughing Matter: New Lawsuit May Impose Strict Liability on Nitrous Oxide Manufacturers for Marketing Practices In Florida, What You See is What You Get Whether You Click on It or Not Don’t Let It Be “A License to Kill Your Case” — How to Vet Investigators Effectively Trial Prep: Expectation vs. Reality

Sources

[i] Mason et al. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, 2025-cv-00049, E.D. Wash.

[ii] Id. ¶ 6.