The Gore-Tex lawsuit landscape splits into three active fronts against W.L. Gore & Associates: a Maryland Attorney General enforcement action over PFAS pollution from 13 Elkton-area facilities, a community class action by nearby residents, and separate consumer class actions accusing the company of greenwashing its Gore-Tex products. All three were still being litigated as of mid-2026.
Maryland’s Enforcement Case Over PFAS Pollution
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown filed suit against Gore on December 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint, brought under the federal Superfund law (CERCLA) and state environmental statutes, alleges Gore released PFOA — a “forever chemical” — into air and water from 13 facilities in the Elkton area of Cecil County for more than 50 years.1Maryland Department of the Environment. State of Maryland v. W.L. Gore Complaint
The state alleges Gore knew the chemical was dangerous and concealed that knowledge. The complaint traces internal awareness to 1990 at the latest, when former DuPont scientist Dr. Jack Hegenbarth joined Gore; the state says Hegenbarth had sat in on DuPont meetings as early as 1984 where scientists discussed PFOA’s health risks and “total elimination” of its use. DuPont documents cited in the complaint identify Gore as a “first tier” customer that received over 14,000 pounds of PFOA in 1993 alone.2Case Filings Alert. State of Maryland v. W.L. Gore First Amended Complaint Maryland alleges Gore kept using PFOA in manufacturing through the end of 2013, lied to regulators about PFAS air pollution beginning in 1995, and later destroyed pollution-related documents.3The Guardian. Lawsuit Claims Gore-Tex Poisoned Drinking Water Near Maryland Facilities
Testing at Gore’s Cherry Hill, Fair Hill, and Appleton South facilities found PFAS in local drinking water at 200 to 250 times the legal limit, according to the complaint.4WBAL-TV. PFAS Forever Chemicals Maryland Lawsuit W.L. Gore Contamination extends into groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, and state-owned lands including the Fair Hill Natural Resources Area, and the state acknowledges the full scope has not yet been assessed.1Maryland Department of the Environment. State of Maryland v. W.L. Gore Complaint
Maryland is seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, cleanup and investigation costs, and damages for harm to state-owned natural resources. “We don’t want taxpayers to pick up the tab for investigations, for remediation, for abatement, for the sampling,” Brown said.4WBAL-TV. PFAS Forever Chemicals Maryland Lawsuit W.L. Gore
Gore denied the allegations the day the suit was filed, citing what it called “proactive and intensive engagement with state regulators over the past two years.”5W.L. Gore & Associates. MD AG Lawsuit Response In its amended answer filed May 27, 2025, Gore denied each allegation and called the state’s PFAS claims “incomplete and/or incorrect statements of complex scientific and technical matters,” asserting it has cooperated with the Maryland Department of the Environment since at least 1990 and holds the required permits for its operations.6Robert King Law Firm. W.L. Gore PFAS Lawsuit Answer Maryland No settlement, consent order, or remediation agreement has been publicly reported.
Community Class Action by Elkton Residents
Residents who live or work near Gore’s Cherry Hill, Appleton, and Fair Hill plants filed their own class action on February 1, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The case, Wolf v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Case No. RDB-23-280, was brought by the law firms Baird Mandalas Brockstedt & Federico and Motley Rice.7CaseMine. Wolf v. W.L. Gore & Associates8Courthouse News Service. Maryland Class Action Pins Toxic Leakage on Gore-Tex Material Maker
The plaintiffs allege Gore released PFOA, APFO, and byproducts of PTFE manufacturing from its plant stacks, contaminating groundwater, surface water, soil, and air. Some residential wells near the facilities tested above 100 parts per trillion for PFOA, well above the EPA’s lifetime health advisory limit of 0.004 parts per trillion set in June 2022. The complaint links PFAS exposure to kidney, testicular, and breast cancers, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, reproductive and fertility problems, and developmental delays in children.9Gore Class Action. About the W.L. Gore Class Action
Plaintiffs want the pollution stopped, environmental remediation ordered, a medical monitoring program established, and damages paid for health effects, diminished quality of life, and lost property value.10Gore Class Action. W.L. Gore Class Action FAQs The case was still active in early 2026, with an amended scheduling order issued January 27, 2026.11Gore Class Action. W.L. Gore Class Action Documents
Consumer Greenwashing Class Actions
A separate track targets what Gore has told the people buying its jackets and boots. On February 11, 2025, four consumers filed Mason et al. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Case No. 2:25-cv-00049, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, alleging a “significant greenwashing campaign.” The complaint focuses on hang tags and marketing that describe Gore-Tex products as “committed to sustainability,” “environmentally sound,” and “PFC* Free.”12Class Action. Mason et al. v. W.L. Gore and Associates
Plaintiffs argue Gore defines “PFCs” in a way that excludes PTFE and ePTFE, the fluoropolymers at the core of the Gore-Tex membrane, and that discovering this distinction requires “combing through” the company’s website.13ClassAction.org. Gore-Tex Lawsuit Accuses Maker of Greenwashing Environmental Sustainability Claims The suit also alleges Gore-Tex fabric sheds PFAS during ordinary use. The named plaintiffs — Micah Mason (Washington), Dionysios Tsirkas (California), Scott B. Johnson (Minnesota), and Adrian Washington (Illinois) — bring claims under their states’ consumer protection laws plus class claims covering more than two dozen other states, and seek injunctive relief forcing accurate disclosures along with damages for products purchased between January 2018 and December 2024.14Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Maker of Gore-Tex Faces Consumer Class Action Lawsuit
A related consumer action, Walton et al. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Case No. 1:25-cv-01948-BAH, was filed June 17, 2025, in the District of Maryland and transferred to the District of Delaware on March 23, 2026. On May 13, 2026, the Walton plaintiffs filed a 157-page second amended complaint expanding allegations that Gore has concealed PFAS use for decades while marketing its gear as environmentally responsible.15Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. PFAS Gore-Tex Greenwashing
Gore is fighting both suits. It moved to dismiss Mason on April 28, 2025, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing and had not tied the specific products they bought to EPA PFAS research.16Tyson & Mendes. Gore-Tex Greenwashing Lawsuit It moved to dismiss Walton on April 22, 2026, arguing consumers “lack any basis” to claim their garments contain harmful PFAS.17Law360. Gore-Tex Maker Says Harmful Chemicals Suit Can’t Survive In public statements, Gore has denied intentionally misleading anyone and said its use of PFAS is “well documented” on its websites.18Backpacker. Gore-Tex Claimed Its Products Were Free of PFAS
The Fight Over What Counts As PFAS-Free
At the center of the consumer cases is a technical dispute. Gore-Tex’s traditional waterproof membrane is made from ePTFE, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, a fluoropolymer related to Teflon. Gore maintains PTFE is fundamentally different from the PFAS regulators treat as dangerous, calling it “highly stable, too large to be bioavailable, insoluble in water” and “non-toxic” for end users, and has pushed the outdoor industry to draw a “clear distinction” between PTFE and “PFCs of environmental concern.”19Gore-Tex. PFC Goal
The lawsuits reject that framing, arguing PTFE is manufactured using PFAS, falls within standard definitions of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and that Gore-Tex products still rely on PFAS-based durable water repellent (DWR) coatings on their outer surfaces.13ClassAction.org. Gore-Tex Lawsuit Accuses Maker of Greenwashing Environmental Sustainability Claims In 2021 Gore announced a PFAS-free membrane called ePE (expanded polyethylene), with the first products reaching stores in 2022; Patagonia, REI, and Arc’teryx have adopted it.20The New York Times Wirecutter. PFAS Bans for Clothing The transition is not complete across Gore’s line, and the company had not publicly committed to eliminating all PFAS from its DWR treatments as of the latest filings.21Toxic-Free Future. Gore-Tex Manufacturer Announces Availability of New PFAS-Free Membrane
Where Things Stand
None of the three cases has produced a verdict, settlement, or dismissal on the merits. Maryland’s enforcement action is in active litigation after Gore’s May 2025 answer. The Wolf community class action continues under its January 2026 amended schedule. Both consumer cases are at the motion-to-dismiss stage: Mason in the Eastern District of Washington and Walton in Delaware after transfer. Gore denies the allegations across every track and continues to sell Gore-Tex products using both its original ePTFE membrane and its newer ePE alternative.