Maryland has filed suit against W.L. Gore & Associates (Gore), a downstream user of PFAS-containing materials, alleging that its manufacturing processes contributed to PFAS contamination through its use of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), including Teflon®-branded PTFE. The complaint asserts that Gore sourced PTFE from E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) and Chemours Company—two PFAS manufacturers already facing lawsuits from Maryland—and used it to manufacture expanded PTFE (ePTFE), a microporous material incorporated into various products, including GORE-TEX® breathable, water-resistant fabrics used in outdoor and athletic apparel.
The lawsuit, State of Maryland v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03656-RDB (D. Md.), alleges that Gore’s decades-long use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and other PFAS has led to groundwater, surface water and soil contamination. Along with state law claims, Maryland, enabled by EPA’s April 2024 designation of PFOA as a hazardous substance, has asserted claims for cleanup costs and natural resource damages (NRD) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Maryland’s Allegations Against Gore
Gore, a leading manufacturer of fluoropolymer-based products, produces materials used in various industries, including health care, electronics, automotive, aerospace, textiles and apparel. Maryland’s complaint alleges that 13 of Gore’s facilities in the state have contributed to PFAS contamination through air emissions, water discharges and waste disposal. The state cites testing data indicating PFOA levels in drinking water sources near Gore’s facilities exceeding EPA’s newly finalized Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for PFOA of four parts per trillion (ppt), including one location with concentrations as high as 800 ppt.
Maryland connects the alleged PFAS contamination primarily to Gore’s 50-year use of PTFE products, historically sourced from DuPont and later Chemours. The complaint asserts that these products—incorporated into Gore’s fluoropolymer-based products—contained residual ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO)—the ammonium salt form of PFOA, which dissociates into PFOA when exposed to water. The complaint highlights Gore’s use of the PTFE products to create ePTFE, a microporous material Gore invented in 1969 and that enabled its large-scale manufacture, use and sale of fluoropolymer-based products. Beyond its use of PTFE-based products, Maryland alleges that Gore directly used PFOA and other PFAS in other activities at its facilities, though the complaint does not specify the full extent of these activities beyond handling PTFE scrap materials.
The lawsuit further alleges that the PTFE products used by Gore may have contained additional PFAS impurities, including perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) and perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA). PFHxA and PFHpA are not currently listed as CERCLA hazardous substances, but PFHxA’s potential designation is the subject of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking published by EPA on April 23, 2023 (71 Fed. Reg. 22,399).
Maryland’s Allegations Regarding Gore’s Knowledge of PFAS Risks
Maryland’s lawsuit asserts that Gore was aware of PFAS’s persistence and toxicity for decades but failed to disclose these risks to regulators or the public. The complaint points to Gore’s long-standing business relationship with DuPont, the inventor of PTFE and a major supplier of PFOA-containing fluoropolymer products. According to the state, Wilbert Gore, one of the company’s founders, was a former DuPont chemical engineer and chemist.
The complaint further highlights the role of two former DuPont employees who later joined Gore. Relying on DuPont internal memoranda and other documents, the state contends that one of these employees brought “detailed knowledge” of PFOA’s risks and biopersistence to Gore in 1990, where his role included advising the company on PFOA emissions. Similarly, Maryland claims a former DuPont chemical engineer “played a key role” in Gore’s understanding of PFOA issues after he joined the company in 1996. This allegation demonstrates the lengths to which states may go to impute knowledge regarding PFAS to a given company.
In its complaint, the state also points to DuPont documents from the 1990s identifying Gore as a customer interested in alternatives to PFOA as suggesting that Gore was aware of PFOA’s health risks and was concerned about potential releases from its Maryland facilities. The complaint contends that, despite this alleged awareness, Gore continued using and manufacturing PTFE and ePTFE products without implementing adequate containment measures.
Following the complaint’s filing, Gore issued a public statement expressing “surprise” at Maryland’s legal action, emphasizing that it has been actively investigating PFAS contamination in groundwater near its facilities. However, the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment referred to Gore’s investigation as “limited” and focused only on defining contamination rather than addressing its impact. And in the complaint, Maryland asserts that Gore’s investigation comes too late—decades after it allegedly became aware of PFAS risks.
Other Maryland PFAS Litigation
Maryland’s suit is part of a broader wave of PFAS-related litigation, including a pending class action under Maryland state tort law against Gore, in which residents claim that PFAS contamination from Gore’s facilities has exposed them to health risks.
Although Maryland’s lawsuit against Gore is notable because it targets a downstream user of PFAS-containing materials, the state has also brought two PFAS lawsuits—one addressing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) and the other non-AFFF PFAS sources—against Gore’s PTFE suppliers, DuPont and Chemours, as well as DuPont’s APFO supplier, 3M. The AFFF case was removed to federal court and consolidated into the multi-district (MDL) AFFF litigation, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2873, 2:18-mn-02873 (D.S.C.), while the non-AFFF lawsuit, Maryland v. 3M Co., No. 23-cv-1836 (D. Md.), was recently remanded to federal district court after the Fourth Circuit reversed an earlier order sending the case back to state court. Maryland v. 3M Co., No. 24-1218 (4th Cir. March 7, 2025). It is possible that documents produced in these cases may have contributed to Maryland’s allegations regarding Gore’s knowledge of PFAS risks.
The Broader Legal Landscape
Maryland’s suit follows EPA’s designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, a move with far-reaching consequences for entities with historical or current connections to these chemicals. This designation authorizes the government and private parties to recover cleanup costs related to the removal of contaminated soil, water and other affected resources. It also enables federal, state and Tribal trustees of natural resources to pursue damages for injuries to natural resources caused by PFAS contamination.
Maryland was not the first state to file CERCLA claims based on PFAS contamination following the designation, however. Last fall, New Mexico amended its complaint in the AFFF MDL to assert NRD and cost recovery claims under CERCLA. In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2873, 2:18-mn-02873 (D.S.C.). And in January 2025, the City of Wausau, Wisconsin, sued multiple paper plants, chemical and packaging manufacturers, and a landfill, alleging that PFAS wastewater discharges contaminated groundwater wells and seeking response and remediation costs under CERCLA. City of Wausau, WI v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC et al, No. 3:25-cv-00004 (W.D. Wis.). In addition to these actions under federal law, several states have brought or resolved PFAS-related NRD claims under state CERCLA-equivalent statutes.
Meanwhile, EPA’s PFAS designation under CERCLA remains uncertain. In February 2025, the agency was granted 60-day stays in ongoing D.C. Circuit litigation challenging the designation as the new administration reviews the rule. If EPA modifies or rescinds the listing, CERCLA claims in these cases could face dismissal.
Implications for PRPs: A Complex and Expanding Liability Landscape
The Maryland lawsuit against Gore reflects the rising use of CERCLA to address historical PFAS contamination, not only to recover cleanup costs but also to seek damages for lost or injured natural resources. Notably, Maryland’s decision to target a downstream user of PFAS-containing materials—rather than solely focus on the original manufacturers—is part of a potentially burgeoning broader shift in PFAS litigation.
Pillsbury attorneys will continue to monitor developments in PFAS litigation and regulation and provide updates on emerging trends in PFAS liability.
RELATED ARTICLES
EPA Finalizes Rule Designating PFAS Substances as “Hazardous Substances” Under CERCLA
PFAS in Fire Protection Products Continues to Generate Litigation, Liability