Gore-Tex’s Forever Chemical Lie
W.L. Gore & Associates sold you “environmentally sound” waterproof gear. The lawsuit says it was saturated in PFAS “forever chemicals” the whole time—and they knew it for decades.
TL;DR
- W.L. Gore & Associates, maker of the iconic Gore-Tex waterproof fabric, is facing a federal class action lawsuit filed February 11, 2025, in the Eastern District of Washington (Case No. 2:25-cv-00049). The suit accuses Gore of running a decade-long greenwashing campaign while continuing to manufacture Gore-Tex using PFAS “forever chemicals” that never break down in the environment.
- Gore spent enormous marketing resources labeling its products “PFC* Free Laminate,” “Environmentally Sound,” and “Committed to Sustainability”—but the asterisk in “PFC*” hides a private definition Gore invented to exclude PTFE and ePTFE, the fluoropolymers that are the literal core of the Gore-Tex membrane. Academic journals, governments, and consumer groups all classify PTFE as a PFC. Gore quietly decided it doesn’t.
- Gore-Tex fabric doesn’t just contain PFAS during manufacturing. Studies cited in the complaint show it sheds PFAS into the environment during ordinary use, during washing (releasing an estimated 2,064 pounds of PFAS-laden microplastic fibers into water per year across consumers), and again when incinerated at end of life, emitting a greenhouse gas 6,500 times more potent than CO2.
- Gore’s founder came from DuPont’s fluoropolymer division. Two former DuPont engineers who personally received internal memos about PFOA toxicity in the 1980s and 1990s later joined Gore in senior research roles. The complaint argues Gore had direct, documented knowledge of PFAS dangers from its earliest days.
- The Maryland Attorney General filed a separate federal lawsuit in December 2024 alleging Gore “polluted the air and water around its facilities.” Residents of Cecil County, Maryland—where Gore manufactures—have also sued for health damages. A prior employee sued in 2022 after living within one mile of Gore’s Cherry Hill facility.
- The class covers consumers across 27 states plus Washington D.C. who purchased Gore-Tex products. Plaintiffs include buyers of Volcom snow pants, a Dainese Gore-Tex jacket, Danner Sharptail Boots, and a North Face rain jacket. All say they were never told the products were made with PFAS and would not have paid full price—or anything at all—had they known.
- Gore’s annual revenue was approximately $3 billion in 2024. Gore-Tex holds a 70% share of the $460 million waterproof-breathable outerwear market. This is not a small side operation. This is the business model.
- The suit demands both injunctive relief (forcing Gore to make accurate corrective disclosures) and monetary damages, asserting violations of consumer protection statutes in over two dozen states as well as common law fraudulent concealment claims.
The internal corporate voices that gave Gore its supposed “green” credibility are on the record. What Gore’s own Business Leader and its Sustainability team leaders said in public while their product was shedding forever chemicals into your local watershed is documented word-for-word in the Legal Receipts section.
The Non-Financial Ledger
You bought the jacket because you love the mountains. Or maybe just because you walk to work in the rain and you wanted something that actually worked. You paid a premium—Gore-Tex is never cheap—and part of what you were paying for, part of what you believed you were buying, was the right to feel okay about it. The hang tag said “Environmentally Sound.” You scanned the QR code and it took you to a website full of green imagery and promises about sustainability being a founding principle. You put it on and went outside, and you did not feel guilty, because the company told you there was nothing to feel guilty about.
That is what was taken from you. Gore knew, the complaint alleges, that its product was built around a chemical family that never breaks down. It knew its fabric shed those chemicals into the water and soil when you wore it in the rain. It knew the fabric released more when you washed it, and more still when it ended up in a landfill. It knew all of this because the people who built the company came directly from DuPont, the corporation whose own internal studies from the 1950s documented the toxic nature of these chemicals—studies that showed links to cancer, developmental damage in children, and persistence in human blood. Those DuPont scientists joined Gore. They brought their files and their knowledge with them. Gore’s senior research and manufacturing operations for PFAS-related issues were led, in part, by a man who had personally received internal DuPont memoranda about the health effects of PFOA exposure in the early 1980s.
What Gore did instead of disclosure was branding. It created a category called “PFCs of Environmental Concern” and simply excluded the PTFE at the core of its product from that definition. It put an asterisk on its hang tag. An asterisk. And it trusted that you would not read the fine print, and that if you did, you would not spend hours navigating its website to find out that the asterisk quietly carved out the entire substance its product is made of. It trusted your goodwill, and it used that trust to charge a premium and protect its 70% market share.
Meanwhile, if you are a hiker, every trail you walked in your Gore-Tex gear was a delivery mechanism. The rain that hit your jacket and beaded off carried PFAS into the soil at your feet and into the streams you crossed. You thought you were protecting the environment you were visiting. You were, through no fault of your own, doing the opposite. Ordinary people who bought these products to minimize their footprint were turned into inadvertent vectors for contamination. That is the specific shape of this betrayal. It targeted people whose values made them easier to deceive.
The residents of Cecil County, Maryland, where Gore’s manufacturing plants operate, did not get to make any consumer choice at all. They just lived there. They are now suing for health damages they say stem from PFAS contamination leaching into the air and groundwater around their homes. A former Gore employee who lived within one mile of the Cherry Hill facility filed suit in 2022 for health conditions tied to PFAS exposure. Another plaintiff filed a similar suit in December 2024. These are not abstract harms on a regulatory chart. These are people’s bodies and their neighborhoods.
The brand promise of “Responsible Performance” was not a small lie buried in the fine print of a pharmaceutical insert. It was the primary product. Gore sold the image of environmental stewardship as aggressively as it sold waterproofing. Its CEO called sustainability “an expression of our Gore brand promise.” Its sustainability team leader said they were “striving to create products that positively impact both people and the planet.” Those words were spoken into a press that reported them and a market that believed them, while the factory kept running on forever chemicals and the fabric kept shedding them into the watershed. The gap between those two realities is what this lawsuit is about.
Legal Receipts
The following quotes are drawn verbatim from the class action complaint (Case No. 2:25-cv-00049) and from the corporate sources it cites. Nothing below is paraphrased.
“Gore-Tex and other Gore fabrics are an environmentally sound choice because they are manufactured responsibly and we employ a Life Cycle Assessment approach that considers all aspects of our products that starts with the production of raw materials by our suppliers and includes all elements of manufacturing and transportation.”
Source: Gore’s Sustainability Commitment website, FAQ section, cited in complaint paragraph 89.
- This statement claims that Gore conducts a full Life Cycle Assessment covering raw materials through to consumer use and disposal. The complaint alleges Gore never disclosed in this context that its raw material—ePTFE—is a PFAS, and that ordinary use, washing, and disposal each generate documented PFAS contamination events.
- The claim that products are “manufactured responsibly” is the centerpiece of Gore’s green branding. The complaint argues it is directly contradicted by the company’s continued use of PFAS in both the membrane and DWR treatment after publicly signaling a transition away from these chemicals.
- The Green Guides (16 C.F.R. §260.4) prohibit general environmental benefit claims that imply a product has “no negative environmental impact” unless the marketer can substantiate all reasonable consumer interpretations with competent scientific evidence. The complaint asserts Gore cannot do so.
“We believe performance and sustainability are not mutually exclusive, and protecting people also means protecting the planet. Responsible Performance defines our sustainability commitment beyond technical product performance benefits to include a wider combination of protection, comfort and sustainability. We are striving to create products that positively impact both people and the planet, and deliver the high-performance benefits customers and consumers trust and rely on from us.”
Source: Silke Kemmerling, Gore Fabrics Division Sustainability Team Leader, cited in complaint paragraph 93.
- A named sustainability executive making public, attributable claims that Gore products “positively impact both people and the planet” while those products were manufactured with chemicals described by the Yale School of Public Health as having no safe exposure level is central to the fraudulent concealment claims filed in multiple states.
- The complaint frames this type of executive statement as part of the “Responsible Performance” campaign that lasted over a decade, creating a consistent and material misimpression in the consumer market that Gore’s practices were genuinely sustainable.
- Under Green Guides §260.3(c), overstating an environmental attribute—even if technically true in isolation—is a violation if it creates a false impression about the overall environmental character of a product. The complaint argues these statements do exactly that.
“Many years ago, our customers approached us. We want to have a PFAS-free product, and it should, by the way, performance as well as any PTFE. […] It’s high-performance and sustainable because our customers are asking for this.”
Source: Achim Loeffler, Gore-Tex Global Business Leader, December 2024, cited in complaint paragraph 36.
- This statement is cited in the complaint as Gore’s own executive confirming that consumers had been demanding PFAS-free products for “many years.” The complaint uses this admission to establish that Gore knew PFAS-free status was material to consumer purchasing decisions—a key element of fraudulent concealment claims.
- The statement was made in December 2024, the same month the Maryland Attorney General filed suit against Gore for PFAS contamination from its manufacturing facilities. Gore’s leadership was simultaneously acknowledging consumer demand for PFAS-free products and facing government litigation for PFAS pollution.
- This admission also undermines any defense that Gore was unaware its PFAS use was material. A company whose own executive publicly acknowledges years of consumer pressure on PFAS cannot credibly claim it had no duty to disclose that its products still contained PFAS.
“apparel or accessories made with Gore fabrics can be safely disposed of just like any other apparel product.”
Source: Gore’s Sustainability Commitment website FAQ section, cited in complaint paragraph 90.
- This statement is directly contradicted by EPA-approved disposal methods for PFAS-containing materials, which include underground injection, hazardous waste landfills, and thermal treatment—methods that are specifically required because PFAS products cannot be “safely disposed of just like any other” product.
- The complaint further cites a published study showing that Gore-Tex fabric incinerated via municipal solid waste processes emits PFAS into air and water, and also releases tetrafluoromethane, a greenhouse gas with a warming potential 6,500 times that of carbon dioxide.
- The complaint notes that Washington state law (Wash. Rev. Code §70A.455.010) specifically requires that environmental marketing claims related to disposal and biodegradability adhere to uniform and recognized standards. This statement, the complaint argues, does not.
“The Gore-Tex brand is committed to being a responsible brand and continuing our journey to discover innovative products that offer customers and consumers high performance and are also sustainable.”
Source: Achim Löffler, Consumer Fabrics Business Leader, cited in complaint paragraph 94.
- This statement is identified in the complaint as part of a pattern of executive-level messaging that the lawsuit calls the “Responsible Performance” campaign—a multi-year effort to position Gore as an industry leader in environmental responsibility while allegedly concealing the continued use of PFAS in core products.
- The complaint argues that under the Green Guides and the state consumer protection statutes of over two dozen states, unsubstantiated claims of being a “responsible brand” committed to “sustainability” constitute deceptive trade practices when the products involved contain or shed hazardous chemicals that the company declined to disclose.
Societal Impact Mapping
Environmental Degradation
PFAS chemicals are called “forever chemicals” because they take hundreds to thousands of years to break down. The complaint documents multiple routes by which Gore-Tex products deposit PFAS into the environment across the product’s entire lifecycle.
- Studies cited in the complaint show that weathering of DWR-treated outdoor clothing increases PFAS concentrations in the fabric by 5- to more than 100-fold compared to unweathered samples, and reveals additional PFAS compounds not detected in the original textile. Rain-exposed Gore-Tex sheds PFAS including PFBA and PFOA directly into the environment wherever it is worn.
- Simulated home laundering studies found that washing PFAS-treated outdoor jackets releases PFAS-containing microplastic fibers into laundry water at a rate estimated to produce 2,064 pounds of PFAS emissions per year across the consumer base. Those fibers flow into wastewater systems and ultimately into waterways.
- When Gore-Tex products are incinerated through standard municipal solid waste processes—the default disposal path for gear that Gore’s own website said could be treated “just like any other apparel”—published studies show they emit PFAS compounds into air and water. Incineration also generates tetrafluoromethane, a greenhouse gas with a warming potential 6,500 times that of carbon dioxide.
- PFAS leaches into soil through PFAS-containing manufacturing runoff, contaminated sewage sludge, and landfill leachate from discarded products. It disrupts soil pH and structure and harms the microbial organisms that maintain soil function. PFAS has been detected in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and seas across the globe.
- Residents of Cecil County, Maryland—where Gore’s manufacturing facilities are concentrated—have sued Gore for PFAS contamination they allege leached into local air and groundwater. The Maryland Attorney General filed a separate federal lawsuit in December 2024 accusing Gore of polluting air and water around its facilities while “raking in profits.”
- Because PFAS chemicals bioaccumulate, they concentrate in the tissues of wildlife over time. Ecosystems in rural, urban, and environmentally sensitive areas near manufacturing and consumer use sites face compounding contamination that cannot be reversed on any human timescale.
Public Health
No safe level of PFAS exposure is recognized by public health authorities. The Yale School of Public Health is quoted in the complaint stating explicitly that “no safe level of PFAS in the body is considered safe.” The health consequences documented in the scientific literature cited in the suit are extensive.
- PFAS exposure is scientifically linked to increased risk of prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers. DuPont and 3M conducted internal studies as early as the 1950s documenting these links. Those studies were not made public. Gore’s own founding lineage connects directly to the scientists who possessed this knowledge.
- PFAS exposure is linked to developmental effects in children including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, and behavioral changes. The complaint states there is “no safe level of PFOA or PFOS exposure” per Yale School of Public Health guidance.
- Decreased fertility, increased cholesterol levels, and risk of obesity are all documented associations with PFAS exposure in peer-reviewed literature cited in the complaint.
- PFAS exposure reduces vaccine response, meaning that populations with higher PFAS body burdens may have diminished protection from routine immunization. This is a systemic public health risk that compounds over time as PFAS accumulates in the body.
- A former Gore employee who lived within one mile of Gore’s Cherry Hill manufacturing facility filed suit in 2022 (Sutton v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01471, D. Md.) for health conditions attributed to PFAS exposure. A second plaintiff filed a nearly identical suit in December 2024 (Martin et al. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03549, D. Md.). These are not projections. These are filed cases with named plaintiffs and documented conditions.
- PFAS has been found in drinking water supplies globally as a result of contamination from manufacturing discharge, landfill leachate, and consumer product use. People who have no connection to outdoor gear manufacturing or purchase can carry PFAS body burdens as a result of contaminated drinking water.
Economic Inequality
The financial and legal architecture of this case reveals a familiar pattern: a corporation captures premium pricing from values-driven consumers while communities near its factories absorb the health and environmental costs without compensation or disclosure.
- Gore’s annual revenue in 2024 was approximately $3 billion. It holds a 70% share of the $460 million waterproof-breathable outerwear market. The premium pricing enabled by its sustainability branding—consumers were willing to pay 9.7% more for sustainably produced goods per a PricewaterhouseCoopers survey cited in the complaint—represents direct financial extraction from eco-conscious buyers based on claims the lawsuit alleges are false.
- Cecil County, Maryland residents living near Gore’s manufacturing plants are suing for health and environmental damages. These are working-class communities that did not choose to buy Gore-Tex and did not benefit from its premium brand positioning. They absorbed the externalized costs of the manufacturing process—contaminated groundwater and air pollution—without the product’s supposed benefits.
- The four named plaintiffs span Washington, California, Minnesota, and Illinois. They paid for products from evo.com, a Dainese store, a Scheels sporting goods store, and a North Face retail location. The common thread: all say they relied on Gore’s environmental marketing in making their purchase decision, and all say they paid more than they would have had they known the product contained PFAS.
- At least 36 states have introduced or passed legislation regulating PFAS in consumer products. California and New York laws restricting PFAS in apparel took effect January 1, 2025. Companies that lobbied or delayed against these measures while continuing to sell PFAS-containing products imposed the cost of regulatory inaction on the public health system and on the communities that absorb contamination.
- The class action covers consumers across 27 states plus Washington D.C. The complaint asserts that the pattern of deception was systemic and uniform—applied through identical hang tags, identical website claims, and identical QR-code links across all Gore-Tex certified products regardless of state or retailer. The economic harm was therefore distributed at scale.
The “Cost of a Life” Metric
What Now?
The class action is active. Regulators are moving. Here is who is accountable, who is watching, and what you can do.
Corporate Leadership on Record
- Achim Löffler, Consumer Fabrics Business Leader: publicly stated Gore is “committed to being a responsible brand” pursuing sustainability while the company continued selling ePTFE-membrane products with PFAS-based DWR treatments.
- Silke Kemmerling, Fabrics Division Sustainability Team Leader: stated products are “striving to positively impact both people and the planet” while the complaint alleges no disclosure of PFAS content was made to consumers.
- Ross MacLaine, Fabrics Sustainable Leader: stated the company is “lowering our footprint” while PFAS shed from ordinary product use was depositing forever chemicals into waterways and soil.
- W.L. Gore & Associates (corporation): 555 Paper Mill Road, Newark, Delaware 19711. 36 U.S. manufacturing plants. Facilities in UK, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, China. Offices in 25+ countries.
Regulatory Watchlist
- FTC: The Green Guides (16 C.F.R. Part 260) are the primary regulatory framework the lawsuit invokes. The FTC has authority to enforce Section 5 of the FTC Act against deceptive environmental marketing claims. File a complaint at ftc.gov/complaint.
- EPA: The EPA has authority over PFAS regulation, including the 2024 Interim Guidance on Destruction and Disposal of PFAS. The agency is the relevant body for reporting PFAS contamination of groundwater and waterways near manufacturing facilities.
- State Attorneys General: The Maryland AG has already filed suit. AGs in California, New York, Connecticut, Colorado, Maine, Vermont, and Washington have either enacted PFAS apparel legislation or are in the process of doing so. Contact your state AG’s consumer protection division to report concerns.
- DOJ / U.S. District Courts: The class action is filed in the Eastern District of Washington (Case No. 2:25-cv-00049). Led by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle. Class members in 27 states and Washington D.C. may be eligible to participate.
- CPSC: The Consumer Product Safety Commission has jurisdiction over hazardous substances in consumer products. PFAS content in wearable consumer goods falls within its purview, particularly as state laws restricting PFAS in apparel take effect.
How to Act
- If you purchased a Gore-Tex product, contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (hbsslaw.com) to inquire about class membership. Purchases across 27 states and D.C. are covered. You do not need to have kept your receipt.
- Support PFAS-free alternatives: Columbia OutDry, Nikwax PFAS-free DWR treatments, Helly Hansen Lifa Infinity Pro, Marmot PreCip Eco, The North Face Futurelight, and Salomon PFC EC-free footwear are all named in the complaint as existing PFAS-free alternatives. Your purchasing power is leverage.
- Demand label transparency: Contact retailers (REI, REI Co-op, LL Bean, Outdoor Research, Brooks, Dainese, North Face retail stores) directly to demand that all PFAS-containing products be clearly labeled as such. Retailers can be held liable under California (Cal. AB-1817) and New York PFAS apparel laws effective January 1, 2025.
- Support Safer States: The national alliance of environmental health organizations tracking 450+ PFAS-related bills across 36 states. Their bill tracker is public at saferstates.org. Legislative contact at the state level is the most direct lever available for expanding PFAS disclosure laws to your state.
- If you live near a Gore facility (Cecil County, MD; Newark, DE; and facilities in UK, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, China): Document any unusual contamination, contact your local environmental health department, and consult legal counsel. Sutton v. W.L. Gore (No. 1:22-cv-01471) and Martin et al. v. W.L. Gore (No. 1:24-cv-03549) in the District of Maryland are precedent cases for proximity-based PFAS exposure claims.
- Mutual aid and local organizing: Connect with local watershed protection groups, environmental justice organizations, and community health coalitions in areas near Gore manufacturing sites. PFAS contamination is a public water supply issue, not only a consumer product issue. Organizing at the municipal water board level for mandatory PFAS testing of local water supplies is a concrete, actionable step.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
Explore by category
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →
