BIC faces class action lawsuit over PFAS in razors

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accuse BIC of failing to disclose to consumers the presence of PFAS in the lubricated strip of some razors. Plaintiffs pursue claims under California’s unfair competition law, false advertising law, Consumer Remedies Act, and claims for fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent failure to warn.

This proposed class action lawsuit arises from information gathered by the public advocacy group following a public records request that BIC filed with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department) pursuant to the Maine PFAS Disclosure Requirements enacted on July 15, 2021. Maine’s statute, the Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Pollution Stopper Act, initially required manufacturers of products sold in Maine that contain intentionally added PFAS to provide the Department with a written notification by January 1, 2023. That notification had to include, among other things, a brief description of the product, the purpose of using the PFAS in product, the amount of each PFAS in the product, and the name and address of the manufacturer. The Act was later amended to extend the reporting deadline to January 1, 2025, and amended again to remove the January 1, 2025 deadline and narrow the categories of producers who must meet the reporting requirements. However, by the time the changes were introduced, some companies had already provided the required information to the Department.

The BIC class action lawsuit may mark the beginning of a new trend given the development of state laws (such as Maine) and federal laws. Minnesota recently passed a law that requires disclosure to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by January 2026 of the presence of intentionally added PFAS. Currently, the state of Vermont requires disclosure if “highly concerning” PFAS are present in children’s products. In October 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a final rule on reporting and recordkeeping requirements for PFAS under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (federal regulation). The federal rule requires manufacturers or importers of PFAS or products containing PFAS to submit a one-time report to the Environmental Protection Agency on the presence of PFAS in their products for each year from 2011 through 2022, even if the products have been discontinued. In turn, the reporting aspects of Maine law apply to products that, in most cases, will be sold after January 1, 2032.

Additionally, the federal rule requires companies to determine the chemical information and maximum concentration of each specific PFAS used, as well as the use and production volume of each PFAS-containing product, disposal, exposure, and hazards associated with PFAS in their products.(1) Deadline for reporting under federal regulations expires on May 8, 2025 or November 10, 2025, depending on the size of the company.

Because some, if not all, PFAS information reported to state agencies or the Environmental Protection Agency (2) can be accessed through public information requests such as a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, manufacturers and importers (and potentially distributors) should carefully examine their labeling and warning programs to ensure compliance with, among other things, state and federal consumer protection laws and common law principles regarding defect and fraud warnings. Given that specific reporting deadlines are set at one or two years, there is still time to mitigate the impact of these new rules.

It should be noted that some states, such as California and Colorado, require the manufacturer of certain products to disclose the presence of certain PFAS online or on the product label. In these states, a public information request would not be necessary to access information regarding PFAS content in company products. However, by the same token, public disclosure of PFAS content or disclosure of product information, while potentially exposing a company to litigation arising from pre-existing or non-compliant products, likely precludes litigation regarding certain claims arising from the sale of compliant products.