Band-Aid Lawsuit: PFAS Claims, Dismissal, and Refiling

The class action lawsuit alleging that Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages contain PFAS “forever chemicals” was dismissed by a federal judge in New Jersey on February 2, 2026. Judge Michael A. Shipp ruled that the plaintiffs in the consolidated Band-Aid PFAS lawsuit had not shown they were actually harmed by the products, which is a constitutional requirement for a federal court to hear the case. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs can try again if they file a stronger complaint.¹

What the Lawsuits Claimed

On April 10, 2024, Sharnay Moultrie of Antioch, California, filed a proposed class action against Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint named four products: Band-Aid Flexible Fabric Comfortable Protection Bandages and three OURTONE Flexible Fabric varieties, BR45, BR55, and BR65.²

Moultrie said she bought OURTONE bandages in 2022 and would not have bought them, or would have paid less, had she known they contained PFAS. The complaint pointed to potential health effects associated with PFAS exposure generally, including cancer, thyroid disorders, liver damage, decreased fertility, and immune system disruption, and asserted there is “no safe level of exposure.” Legal claims included violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, and unjust enrichment.²

The Moultrie suit was one of several similar cases filed in the District of New Jersey. They were consolidated before Judge Shipp, with a related case, Aronstein v. Kenvue, Inc. (No. 24-cv-4665), becoming the vehicle the defendants used to seek dismissal. Kenvue is the publicly traded consumer health company that took ownership of the Band-Aid brand after Johnson & Johnson spun it off in 2023.³

The Testing That Sparked the Case

The lawsuits grew out of a consumer investigation by the watchdog group Mamavation, published with Environmental Health News. Between November 2022 and February 2024, Mamavation sent 40 bandage varieties to an EPA-certified lab, which measured total organic fluorine as a proxy for the likely presence of PFAS. Twenty-six of the 40 bandages tested above the 10 parts per million detection threshold.

Band-Aid’s OURTONE Flexible Fabric line produced some of the highest numbers. The BR65 variety measured 374 ppm on its sticky flaps and 260 ppm on the absorbent pad. BR45 and BR55 came in at 262 ppm and 250 ppm on their absorbent pads. One Band-Aid Flexible Fabric Comfortable Protection sample registered 188 ppm on the absorbent pad. Store brands from Target, Walmart, CVS, and Rite Aid also showed elevated fluorine.⁴

Mamavation also found that 10 of 16 bandages marketed to people of color tested above 10 ppm, drawing particular attention to the OURTONE line, which is positioned as an inclusive product designed to match a range of skin tones.⁴

Follow-up testing by Consumer Reports in May 2026 told a more complicated story. Instead of using total organic fluorine as a proxy, Consumer Reports screened 15 bandage brands for 30 specific PFAS compounds. Fourteen of the 15 had detectable levels of at least one, but concentrations were much lower than the Mamavation numbers suggested. Quantifiable levels ran from 1.8 to 8.1 nanograms per gram, all under the European Union’s 25 ng/g limit for individual PFAS in consumer products. Band-Aid Flexible Fabric was the only brand tested with no detectable levels of any of the 30 PFAS. Every manufacturer that responded to Consumer Reports said the PFAS was not intentionally added and likely came from contamination during manufacturing or the supply chain.⁵

Kenvue has said it does not intentionally add PFAS to its products and that its bandages “are safe to use, comply with existing regulations, and pass rigorous safety and quality checks.” The company did not say whether it conducts independent third-party PFAS testing.⁵

Why the Judge Dismissed the Case

The court found that the plaintiffs had not established Article III standing, the requirement that a plaintiff show an actual injury before a federal court can hear the case. Judge Shipp went through and rejected each of the three injury theories the plaintiffs offered.⁶

The first was benefit of the bargain: plaintiffs said they overpaid for a product they thought was safe. The court rejected it because the plaintiffs did not allege any adverse health effects, did not claim the bandages failed to cover minor wounds as intended, and could not point to a specific misrepresentation that drove their purchase.

The second was the alternative-product theory: plaintiffs said they paid more than they would have for a comparable, PFAS-free bandage. The court found they never identified a specific cheaper alternative they would have bought, never alleged the defendants advertised Band-Aids as superior to competitors, and offered no facts about comparative pricing.

The third was injunctive relief: the plaintiffs asked the court to force the defendants to change their practices. That kind of order requires a risk of future harm. The plaintiffs had stopped using the products and did not allege they would buy them again, so there was nothing to prevent. The court called any future health harm from PFAS exposure “purely speculative” because the plaintiffs had not alleged what actual health consequences the detected levels would produce.⁶

Can the Case Come Back?

Yes, in theory. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint fixing what the court identified.⁷ As of mid-2026, docket entries do not show an amended complaint has been filed, though subsequent motions, including a motion to strike and another motion to dismiss, appear on the docket.⁸

Refiling successfully will be harder than filing the first time. The court wanted evidence that the PFAS in the bandages caused measurable harm, or at least a specific economic injury beyond a bare assertion that plaintiffs would not have bought the product. Consumer Reports’ 2026 testing, which found PFAS levels well below European limits and none at all in Band-Aid Flexible Fabric, cuts against building that record.

Are the Bandages Actually Dangerous?

The science on absorption through skin is still developing. A 2024 University of Birmingham study using lab-grown skin models found that 15 of 17 PFAS substances tested showed “substantial dermal absorption,” with 13.5% of PFOA reaching the bloodstream in the models.⁹ Lab conditions differ from real-world use, and no peer-reviewed study has looked specifically at absorption from adhesive bandages on wounds.

Jamie DeWitt, director of the Pacific Northwest Center for Translational Environmental Health Research at Oregon State University, told Consumer Reports that PFAS can be absorbed through skin, but the amount from bandage use is likely lower than from drinking water or food, and individual consumers are “not likely to experience an increased risk from that exposure.”⁵

What Regulators Say

No U.S. federal rule limits PFAS in adhesive bandages. The EPA set national limits for six PFAS in drinking water, but those standards do not reach consumer medical products.¹⁰ The FDA, which regulates medical devices, has not issued specific guidance on PFAS in wound-care products.

Some states are moving. New York Senate Bill S7839, introduced by State Senator Michelle Hinchey, would prohibit selling medical adhesives and bandages containing intentionally added PFAS. It passed the New York Senate 61-0 in June 2026 and went to the Assembly Committee. Violations would carry civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day, rising to $2,500 per day for subsequent violations.¹¹ Maine’s broad PFAS product ban, phasing out intentionally added PFAS by 2032, explicitly exempts medical devices and FDA-regulated products, which would likely cover adhesive bandages.¹² Europe holds consumer products to a 50 ppm limit on total organic fluorine and a 25 ng/g limit on individual PFAS, thresholds U.S. regulators have not adopted.⁵

For anyone who bought the OURTONE or Flexible Fabric products named in the complaint, there is currently no settlement, no claims process, and no active class to join. The case would need to be refiled and survive a second motion to dismiss before that changes.

1
Law360. J&J Beats Proposed Class Action Over Band-Aid PFAS
2
ClassAction.org. Moultrie v. Johnson and Johnson Inc. et al.
3
SEC. Kenvue 424B3 Filing
4
Mamavation. Band-Aids and Bandages With Indications of PFAS Forever Chemicals Report
5
Consumer Reports. Adhesive Bandages PFAS Levels
6
Dechert. Sticking to Standing: Court Dismisses Class Action in Adhesive Bandage Case
7
HarrisMartin. PFAS-Containing Band-Aid Lawsuit Dismissed for Now
8
PACER Monitor. Aronstein v. Kenvue, Inc. et al.
9
CIEH. Forever Chemicals Can Be Absorbed Through the Skin
10
Northeastern University. Band-Aid PFAS Forever Chemicals
11
New York State Senate. S7839 – Regulation of PFAS in Medical Adhesives and Bandages
12
Maine DEP. PFAS in Products