Firefighter gear class action lawsuit overview:
- Who: The County of San Mateo filed a class action lawsuit against 3M Company, DuPont De Nemours Inc. and 17 other companies.
- Why: The county claims the companies manufactured and sold firefighter gear containing toxic and carcinogenic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
- Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.
- How to get help: Did PFAS-contaminated water make you sick? You may qualify to join a PFAS class action lawsuit.
A new class action lawsuit alleges multiple companies, including 3M Company and DuPont De Nemours, manufactured firefighter gear containing toxic PFAS, which contaminated fire stations and exposed firefighters to serious health risks.
The County of San Mateo claims 3M, DuPont De Nemours and 17 other companies knew for decades about the dangers of PFAS but failed to warn firefighters and other public entities that purchased and used the gear.
The county further argues the companies conspired to cover up and conceal the risks of PFAS, which have been linked to cancer, immune system disorders and other harmful health conditions.
“Instead, Defendants collaborated to conceal the truth, and such concealment was a common purpose of the PFAS Cover-up Enterprise,” the firefighter gear class action lawsuit says.
The county wants to represent a nationwide class — or alternatively a California class — of counties, cities, municipalities, fire districts and other public or private entities in the United States that have purchased or paid for firefighter Turnout Gear that contained PFAS during the relevant time period that was treated or contaminated with PFAS resulting from the defendants’ manufacturing, assembling, distribution, marketing, offering for sale or sales activity.
Firefighter gear treated with PFAS to repel water and oil, class action claims
The county claims the companies’ firefighter gear, which includes hoods, helmets, coats, pants, gloves, boots and reflective tape, was treated with PFAS to make it water- and oil-repellent.
However, the PFAS in the gear did not remain contained, but rather leached, shed, crumbled, abraded, off-gassed and migrated out of the gear, contaminating fire stations, fire trucks, equipment, property and firefighters, the firefighter gear class action alleges.
The county further argues the companies failed to design safer gear that did not contain PFAS — even though PFAS-free gear was available in the marketplace as of 2025 — and breached their warranties and violated state consumer protection laws by selling unfit and dangerous gear.
The county claims 3M, DuPont De Nemours and the other companies are guilty of common law conspiracy, strict liability, fraud, negligence and unjust enrichment, and of violating the Corrupt Organizations Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.
The county demands a jury trial and requests an award of punitive and compensatory damages for itself and all class members.
In a separate lawsuit, five Georgia cities teamed up to sue 3M earlier this year over claims the company knowingly contaminated the state’s water supply with PFAS.
Have you purchased or paid for firefighter gear that contained PFAS? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Joseph W. Cotchett, Adam J. Zapala, Elizabeth T. Castillo, Christopher F. Jeu and Lauren Devens of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP.
The Firefighter gear class action lawsuit is The County of San Mateo, et al. v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01654, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
