Key Takeaways
PFAS-related consumer class actions continue to face scrutiny at the pleading stage, as illustrated by the recent Aronstein decision regarding adhesive bandages.
Last month, a New Jersey federal court dismissed a putative class action alleging that defendants failed to disclose the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in adhesive bandages. Aronstein v. Kenvue, Inc., No. 24-cv-4665, 2026 WL 266713 (D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2026). Plaintiffs claimed they relied on the product’s packaging and ingredient lists and “would not have purchased [the products], or would have paid significantly less for them, had [they] known that the products contained” PFAS. Id. at *1. We have previously covered similar PFAS suits dismissed on Article III standing grounds.
In Aronstein, Plaintiffs lacked standing for three reasons. Id. at *4. First, under Plaintiffs’ benefit of the bargain theory, the Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to allege economic injury because they did not “allege[] any adverse health consequences from using the bandages” or that “the bandages did not work as intended, to cover minor scrapes and wounds.” Id. at *5 (citation omitted). Additionally, Plaintiffs failed to “identify the specific misrepresentation that induced their purchase.” Id. at *5 (citation omitted).
Second, under the alternative product and premium price theories, respectively, Plaintiffs failed to plead economic injury “by alleging that, absent [Defendants’] conduct, [they] would have purchased an alternative product that was less expensive,” or by alleging “that [Defendants] unlawfully advertised [their] product as being ‘superior’ to others.” Id. at *6 (citations omitted). Specifically, Plaintiffs did not allege facts about the price of Defendants’ or competitors’ bandages and did not allege that they would have bought competitors’ products. Id. at *6-7.
Finally, Plaintiffs sought “injunctive relief as an appropriate class-wide remedy, in that Defendants continue to manufacture, market, and sell the contaminated bandages and omit material facts.” Id. at *7. The Court agreed with Defendants that Plaintiffs had “not alleged a ‘certainly impending’ injury and lack[ed] standing to seek an injunction.” Id. (citation omitted). The Court held that because Plaintiffs “stopped using the [products] since learning they contain PFAS” and “[did] not allege[] that they would purchase the products again[,]” there was no risk of future harm to Plaintiffs. Id. Additionally, “[b]eyond alleging that testing of the [products] showed levels of PFAS, Plaintiffs [did] not allege the harm that would be caused to users of the [products], making any risk of future harm purely speculative.” Id.
Aronstein offers a roadmap for standing considerations in PFAS and other consumer class action contexts. While ongoing federal and state PFAS initiatives (including those summarized by the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent “top list of actions”) may shape plaintiffs’ litigation theories, stakeholders should continue to press potentially dispositive defenses like standing.
