Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Makers of Gore-Tex
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the makers of Gore-Tex.Attorneys Steve Berman and Catherine Gannon have filed a class action, consumer rights, environmental litigation suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The case was filed in court on February 11, 2025, and alleges that W.L. Gore & Associates knowingly sold products that contained forever chemicals, otherwise known as PFAS or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.'Gore has allegedly continued to use these harmful chemicals in its outdoor gear while also seeking to conceal the harms of its use from the public through a greenwashing campaign,' the complaint states. 'Gore promised consumers it was 'Committed to Sustainability' and 'Environmentally Sound' and that its laminates were 'PFC* Free' and reflected 'Responsible Performance' all while continuing to use environmentally harmful PFAS in its manufacturing process.'The suit also alleges that Gore failed to disclose to its consumers that Gore-Tex fabric sheds PFAS into the environment and water supply during use. Those wishing to join the lawsuit should contact Hagens Berman Sabol Shapiro LLP.
Gore-Tex is a breathable waterproofing agent that is used by companies across the outdoor industry and beyond. It can be found in gloves, hats, jackets, and pants.The outdoor industry has relied on Gore-Tex as its most breathable option for waterproofing for years. In 2021, it was announced that a new PFAS-free version of its Gore-Tex membrane had been created. The lawsuit alleges that the company is still selling goods with the previous chemical makeup, however, and said that the company has relied on 'greenwashing tactics' to market and sell its product to customers.'Gore claims its products represent 'Responsible Performance,' and 'Environmentally Sound' products, which attorneys call empty promises.As of January 2025, PFAS-based waterproofing is banned from apparel for sale in both California and New York, according to the New York Times. Theresa McKenney, director of sustainability at Nemo, told the NYT that PFAS chemicals are cheap and perform well, which has made it difficult for the industry to transition away from them on their own. Wearing PFAS gear is unlikely to harm the user, but the harm comes when those chemicals run off of the outerwear and seep into the soil, water, and air, according to Arlene Blum, a biophysical chemist at University of California Berkeley.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
6 hours ago
- Associated Press
Hagens Berman: Court Grants Final Approval to Historic Settlement in NCAA College Athlete Name, Image and Likeness Antitrust Litigation
OAKLAND, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jun 6, 2025-- Attorneys at Hagens Berman representing a class of nearly 400,000 college athletes celebrated the court's granting of final approval to a historic settlement with the NCAA. In addition to $2.78 billion in past damages, the total value of new payments and benefits to college athletes under the new revenue-sharing model is expected to exceed $20 billion over the next 10 years, making it the largest antitrust class-action settlement in history. The firm's managing partner and co-founder Steve Berman served as court-appointed co-lead counsel in the litigation, fighting for the rights of college athletes for two decades and pioneering the firm's sports litigation practice. 'Hagens Berman's sports litigation attorneys have fought the NCAA's limits to scholarships and pay since 2004 and this result — 20 years later — is a fantastic win for hundreds of thousands of college athletes,' Berman said. 'We look forward to overseeing this process and watching the revenue-sharing benefits unfold for college athletes over the next 10 years.' The antitrust class-action lawsuit against the NCAA will bring historic and previously unforeseen changes to college sports and will allow college athletes to be fairly compensated for the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) in what has become a multibillion-dollar industry. The settlement process was thoroughly reviewed by Judge Claudia A. Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California who in the April settlement fairness hearing requested further attention to details concerning roster limits and other aspects of the settlement. 'Major changes don't happen overnight, and we thank the court for its careful consideration of what is a monumental shift in college sports that will bring the NCAA into the modern age,' Berman said. 'We hope this settlement inspires all to see the capabilities of class-action law to bring about tangible benefits and change. Not to be forgotten are the brave efforts of Sedona Prince and Grant House who were the original class representatives who stood up to take on this fight.' The settlement resolves three pending antitrust lawsuits, House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA. As part of the settlement, the NCAA and its conferences will pay more than $2.78 billion in damages to college athletes over a 10-year period, eliminate rules prohibiting schools from making direct payments to athletes, and dramatically expand the availability of compensation and benefits available to athletes. This includes eliminating restrictions on the number of available athletic scholarships across all Division I sports. Class members in the three affected cases may find out more about the claim process by visiting the settlement website at Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and its member conferences. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in 1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of 'Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm,' MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. View source version on CONTACT: Media Contact Ash Klann [email protected] 206-268-9363 KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEGAL SOURCE: Hagens Berman Copyright Business Wire 2025. PUB: 06/06/2025 11:27 PM/DISC: 06/06/2025 11:25 PM
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Class-Action Lawsuit Accuses the Archery Industry of Price Fixing
A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court last week is accusing the archery industry of colluding to fix prices of products at all levels. The suit, which was filed May 30 in U.S. District Court in Utah, names big-box store retailers like Bass Pro Shops, bowmakers like Mathews, and the Archery Trade Association for conspiring 'to fix the prices of — and eliminate price discounting and competition for — archery products.' The suit was first reported by Reuters on Monday. The 63-page lawsuit hinges on a policy known as Minimum Advertised Pricing, or MAP. Many archery companies and outdoor retailers won't sell their archery equipment, particularly compound bows, for less than a certain amount. If a bow shop undercuts agreed upon prices, manufacturers can — and have — enforced their MAP policies by revoking a shop's authorized dealer status for their brand. The lawsuit accuses the ATA of a 'campaign to artificially raise prices through MAP policies.' MAP policies grew from a need to combat online retail giants like Amazon. The global retailer began undercutting brick and mortar shops by selling products at discount, and without the previously included advice and bow servicing that local sporting goods stores offered customers for free when they purchased equipment. For example, flagship bows from top companies like Mathews, Hoyt, PSE, Bowtech, and others are not sold online. So if you want to purchase the new Mathews, you must show up in person at an authorized dealer. Usually, your local bow shop won't sell you a new bow below the MAP. While there, however, you'll have the opportunity to test-shoot bows and have a bow technician set up your bow properly. If new top bows were to be sold online and shipped directly to your home, industry insiders agree that local bow shops would be doomed. In recent years there's also been a rise in knock-off companies ripping off the design and packaging of top archery products, then selling them at discounted prices online. Customers would think they were buying a brand's top-tier broadheads, but actually receive a cheaper Chinese-made product. Warranty claims began to increase, and archery companies found themselves dealing with quality control and brand degradation. MAP policies were designed to help address this. MAP is a complicated issue, according to industry insiders, but such practices are legal when executed correctly and do not qualify as price fixing as defined by the Federal Trade Commission. The key distinction is that price fixing usually occurs between competitors, while MAP pricing occurs throughout the entire industry. 'MAP is generally legal if it's implemented unilaterally by the manufacturer,' says one former archery industry insider, who asked not to be identified due to the pending litigation. 'Price fixing is when competitors agree to a fixed price. And of course, a manufacturer and a retailer aren't competitors: one is a supplier, one is the seller.' The key, they emphasize, is 'unilaterally.' That means a manufacturer cannot favor one shop or distributor by offering one better pricing. Meanwhile, as e-commerce sales of low-priced and knock-off archery products continued to grow, bow manufacturers and accessory makers looked for an industry-wide solution. To protect their brand values and the industry itself, many companies began implementing MAP policies. 'MAP was completely legal,' the source says. 'No one was suggesting retailers fix prices and force consumers to buy X product at Z price. That never happened and never would have happened. And obviously retailers wouldn't have agreed to it. Retailers want the ability to do things their own way.' Another consideration is that price fixing is often done secretly — because it's illegal. MAP policies are widely publicized by everyone from the ATA to individual manufacturers. (You can find Bowtech's MAP policy here.) One key allegation the lawsuit may be seeking to prove, however, is that the industry tried to enforce not just the advertised price, but the sales price of archery equipment. 'Do I think there's price fixing? No, I've never participated in it. I know that I have dealers sell way below MAP in their store, but they do not advertise that way. And that is their decision. That is their store. I cannot dictate what they sell it for,' said one bow company executive who was not authorized by their legal team to speak publicly about the lawsuit. 'It's a slippery slope because if there's no protection from an advertising standpoint, the big guys are gonna gobble up the small guys. There are shops in the country right now that sell Mathews at $50 to a $100 over cost so that they will sell every Mathews within a 150 mile radius and try to push the smaller guys out of business. I've been told that by big dealers. They don't advertise it but people just know they go in there, you know, they're gonna pay $50 to a hundred over as opposed to $350 to $400 over. So if they could start advertising on what they want and there's nothing we could do, it would drive half the shops in this country out of business.' Because ATA is a non-profit organization, its records are subject to public records requests. The lawsuit is packed with excerpts of these statements that are intended to bolster the price-fixing argument. Here are a few examples: 'These coordinated MAPs have benefited the industry collectively, allowing retailers and distributors to 'strive for a minimum of 40% profit,' according to the industry trade association National Archery Buyers Association ('NABA'). As one Archery Products retailer observed, 'Every dealer I have ever talked to thinks everything in archery is overpriced today, just as I do . . . . [I]s archery overpriced, absolutely.' 'The ATA explained that 'MAP . . .policies help retailers stay in tune with the market and margin expectations. In other words, if you understand and follow a manufacturer's MAP policy, you'll be better positioned to make more money and run a successful business.' The suit is brought by plaintiff Joseph Santarlas from Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 'on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.' In other words, anyone who has bought the archery products referenced in the suit. Santarlas was working Friday and was not immediately available for comment when reached by phone. None of the eight attorneys who signed their names to the lawsuit have replied to Outdoor Life's repeated requests for comment this week. Four different firms, with offices in California, Washington D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania, are listed as counsel for the plaintiff. Most of the firms specialize in antitrust and class-action lawsuits. One industry insider noted that the defendants named in the suit are all larger companies with deeper pockets that might be able to settle such a lawsuit before ever reaching court. Smaller manufacturers and mom-and-pop bow shops are not named. The lawsuit names: Hoyt Bowtech Mathews PSE Cabela's Dick's Bass Pro Shop Jay's Sporting Goods Kinsey's Outdoors Lancaster Archery Supply Archery Trade Association Two software companies that helped companies track MAP pricing Most companies listed in the lawsuit, including Bass Pro Shops, did not return requests for comment or declined to comment to OL. The Archery Trade Association also did not return a call for comment, but issued a brief public statement via email on Friday shortly after OL reached out. Read Next: The Heavy Arrow Trend Is Dead. Speed Is Back 'The Archery Trade Association has learned of a recently filed lawsuit against the ATA and a group of archery manufacturers, distributors and retailers,' reads the statement. 'The complaint seeks relief related to Minimum Advertised Pricing (MAP) policies dating back more than a decade. The ATA is in the process of preparing an appropriate response to the complaint and looks forward to a swift and favorable conclusion to this matter.' Scott Einsmann contributed reporting.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
AstraZeneca sues Utah attorney general over new drug pricing law
AstraZeneca, a major pharmaceutical company, has sued Utah's Attorney General Derek Brown over a recently passed state law allowing for lower pricing in pharmacies. The lawsuit concerns how SB69, passed during the 2025 state legislative session, deals with Section 340B of the federal Public Health Service Act. The suit was filed in May in the U.S. District Court of the District of Utah. The lawsuit argues that SB69 violates federal law by expanding the 340B drug discount program to unlimited pharmacies. The 340B drug discount program is designed to provide pricing benefits to specific eligible health care entities. It requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer products at steeply discounted rates for a specific list of entities. 'Because such price controls can disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets, Congress carefully crafted Section 340B and limited participation in the program to fifteen — and only fifteen — types of covered entities," per the lawsuit. It also points out that for-profit pharmacy chains, such as CVS and Walgreens, were not included in the list of covered entities. AstraZeneca's suit seeks for an order declaring that SB69 violates federal law and is unconstitutional. It also seeks to stop Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike from enforcing SB69 against AstraZeneca in any manner. The Utah Attorney General's Office said Friday it had no comment on the lawsuit. SB69, which was sponsored by Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, defines terms related to the 340B drug discount program and prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from setting certain restrictions. Under the law, manufacturers cannot prohibit or restrict pharmacies from contracting with 340B entities. They also cannot deny these 340B entities access to specific drugs. 'Apparently dissatisfied with the scope of federal law, the State of Utah has enacted a statute seeking to achieve under state law precisely the same result that federal courts have resoundingly rejected,' per the suit. 'The state law requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.' The suit says that SB69 extends Section 340B price caps beyond the scope of the federal program, requiring manufacturers to make discounted drugs available for sale at any and all pharmacies 'authorized by a 340B entity to receive the drug.' It alleges that the law extends the discounts to new categories of transactions that are not covered by the program, thus conflicting with federal law requirements. The suit argues that the law conflicts with federal law, specifically court rulings that 'make clear that the federal 340B statute does not obligate manufacturers to deliver discounted drugs to unlimited contract pharmacies." According to the suit, SB69 also violates federal patent law, which 'prohibits states from regulating the price of patented goods.' 'It requires manufacturers like AstraZeneca to offer steeply discounted prices for the sale of their patented drugs, thereby extending federal price caps to an additional category of patented drug sales (contract pharmacy sales) that federal courts have held fall outside of the 340B program. It also argues that SB69 violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution's takings clause.
