Gore-Tex Sued For Greenwashing Over PFAS in Outdoor Gear
With consumer awareness of the environmental and health impacts of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) growing, many companies have eliminated the chemicals commonly used for water- and stain-resistance from their products. W.L. Gore and Associates, maker of outdoor gear brand Gore-Tex, has become the subject of some of that consumer ire, with a class-action lawsuit filed against the company for allegedly concealing its ongoing use of PFAS.
The suit, which was filed earlier this month in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, accuses Gore-Tex of continuing to use PFAS in its waterproof jackets, shoes, clothing and other products while claiming to be 'committed to sustainability' and 'environmentally sound.' The complaint deemed these statements, along with Gore-Tex's claim that its laminates were 'PFC-free' and provided 'responsible performance' as greenwashing and misleading to the public.
More from Sourcing Journal
Florida Court Hands Lululemon a Win in Greenwashing Action
Material World: Membrane Maker Closes Funding Round, Freitag Bolsters Reflected Bags Line
White Paper Predicts Fashion Consumption to Soar by 63 Percent
'Gore's greenwashing campaign misleads the public by purporting to be highly committed to environmental responsibility and at the forefront of sustainable manufacturing processes,' the lawsuit said. 'But, in truth, Gore continues to produce Gore-Tex Fabric using PFAS.'
PFAS are often referred to as 'forever chemicals' due to their persistence and inability to break down in the environment. PFAS refers to a large class of thousands of chemicals, some of which have been deemed harmful to humans and the environment. They've been linked to cancer, reproductive problems and immune system damage. A study published last year by Environment International found that PFAS chemicals can be absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream, something that was previously thought to be unlikely.
According to the lawsuit, Gore-Tex announced in 2021 that is had developed a new membrane that uses expanded polyethylene, which is not PFAS. The company intended to use this new membrane to replace PFAS in its products. Gore-Tex also announced that it developed a new durable waterproof treatment that does not contain PFAS.
The lawsuit claims that Gore-Tex only uses those PFAS-free materials in its next-generation products, and the company continues to use PFAS in its manufacturing and certain products. The complaint goes on to claim that the PFAS on Gore-Tex products sheds during ordinary use, causing consumers wearing their gear outdoors to inadvertently contaminate the environment.
'We believe that the nature-loving consumers buying Gore-Tex products have been hit where it hurts most. They were misled about the environmental impacts of the outdoor gear they purchased,' said Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens Berman, the law firm representing the suit. 'Gore knew that its customers wouldn't purchase products that could be linked to contaminated water supplies, and so Gore orchestrated a greenwashing campaign to cover up the impacts of its products.'
The class-action lawsuit includes claims of fraudulent concealment, unfair trade practices, deceptive trade and violations of state consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks injunctive relief from the court to force Gore to make accurate corrective disclosures, and also seeks monetary repayment for restitution and/or loss of value of the products purchased due to Gore's alleged misleading statements.
Hagens Berman has pursued similar suits in the past, including a $14.7-billion settlement from Volkswagen for diesel emissions fraud and a case that led to the creation of a water filtration project for communities whose water was contaminated by Dole Food Company. The firm is seeking consumers who purchased Gore-Tex products between 2018 and 2024 to participate in the suit.
'We seek to represent anyone who unknowingly purchased Gore-Tex gear believing Gore's promises of 'performance for the planet,'' Berman said. 'We believe what Gore tells its customers is untrue.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
IndyCar confirms lighter, more powerful Dallara chassis plans for 2028 season
IndyCar gave an official status update on its next-generation chassis prior to qualifying in Wisconsin, sharing details on the car that's planned to be lighter — with a more powerful engine — after sharing the updates in a private meeting with team owners on Saturday. 'The time has come for a new NTT IndyCar Series chassis," IndyCar President J. Douglas Boles said in a press release. 'The DW12 served the series so well, as it provided a combination of phenomenal, wheel-to-wheel racing and critical enhancements to safety. But recent significant updates to the car — from the aeroscreen to the hybrid power unit — have helped advance the need for a completely new car.' Advertisement The next IndyCar chassis is currently slated for a 2028 launch, with on-track testing set to begin in early 2026. Plans include between 85 to 100 pounds of weight reduction (led by a 25-pound decrease from the gearbox) and a step up in displacement to a 2.4-liter twin-turbocharged V-6 internal combustion engine — along with continued evolution of the hybrid unit first introduced in 2024. In comparison, the current IndyCar series regulations require a 2.2-liter, V-6 twin-turbocharged engine. Confirmed suppliers are no surprise. Dallara will produce the chassis, continuing a relationship that dates back to 1997 and has been exclusive since 2008. Xtrac will produce transmissions - an exclusive role it's had since 2000. PFC will supply brakes. No engine suppliers were announced in Saturday's release. Chevrolet and Honda are the current OEMs, but have deals that end after 2026. The release continues: 'We are pleased by what our engineers and Dallara have collaboratively designed and believe it will appeal to the fans and paddock while also upholding our standards of safety and enhancing IndyCar's on-track competition well into the future.' Advertisement IndyCar noted three areas targeted with the new car: competition, powertrain development and safety. Noted in the release were aims for a hybrid unit with longer deployment and more horsepower gain, along with a more ergonomic driver cockpit to improve seating position, an integrated aeroscreen and a new roll hoop. The series plans to unveil renderings and more information at a later date. The current car has been in use since 2012, with adaptations made over time to accommodate modern implementations such as the aeroscreen and hybrid unit. To read more articles visit our website.
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Social Security is still in good shape but faces challenges — from Trump
The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception. A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) to the Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections about the depletion of the programs' reserves: 'Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them.' The reports say nothing about an 'immediate' cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees. The reports, Smith said, make clear 'how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation's growth, increase wages, and create new jobs.' The budget bill 'would do just that,' he said. Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security's case, that's Trump's immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program's solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs. But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans. That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher. Let's take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.) The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold. At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund — actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one — more than $2.3 trillion. Trump has consistently promised that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. 'Trump's tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund,' Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities observed after the release of the trustees' reports this week. 'The Trump administration's actions are weakening the country's economic outlook and Social Security's financial footing.' Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because 'benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today's workers,' notes CBPP's Kiran Rachamallu, 'more workers paying into the system benefits the program's finances.' In the U.S., he writes, 'immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals.' The Social Security trustees' fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will 'increase the funding shortfall.' All told, 'the Trump administration's plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook.' A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers — so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they're unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes. Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program's costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security's fiscal condition. Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security's reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found. Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It's not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or 'going broke' in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees. The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. As I've reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It's also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others. For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it's less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months. Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers. The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs' revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling. The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security's inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues. The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers). Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%. Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income — the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans — at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall. Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump's promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk's DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that's a crime. Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries. The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that?
Business Upturn
2 days ago
- Business Upturn
REC shares rise over 2% as RBI finalises favourable project finance norms; CLSA sees 37% upside
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on June 20, 2025, 09:30 IST Shares of REC Limited climbed 2.25% to ₹392.30 on Friday, June 20, after the Reserve Bank of India released its final guidelines on project financing—offering significant relief to financiers. The final rules are seen as much softer than the earlier draft and have eased concerns over regulatory capital erosion for non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) like REC and PFC. As per the new RBI norms, the Provision Coverage Ratio (PCR) for projects under construction has been set at 1% of the total project cost, while for under-construction Commercial Real Estate (CRE) exposures, it will be 1.25%. In the operational phase, provisions will ease further—0.4% for regular project exposures, 0.75% for CRE and residential housing, and 1% for operational CRE assets. CLSA noted that unlike the earlier draft—which suggested standard PCRs of up to 5%—the final guidelines are far more accommodating. Analysts had feared a 200–300 basis point impact on CET-1 ratios for companies like REC, but the final norms significantly reduce that pressure. CLSA, which has a high-conviction 'Outperform' rating on REC, projects a 37% upside. The brokerage noted that the Ministry of Power is actively working to ease right-of-way and clearance challenges in the power infrastructure space—key hurdles that REC and PFC had cited in their lowered FY25 growth guidance. The new norms, effective October 1, also shift focus to better project appraisal. Disbursements will now only be permitted after securing all regulatory approvals and land access, as per CLSA. REC's market cap now stands at ₹1.03 lakh crore, and the rally is seen as a positive response to RBI's calibrated and sector-sensitive regulatory approach. Ahmedabad Plane Crash Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
