A group of 28 municipalities, fire districts and volunteer fire departments have filed suit against 3M, DuPont-related companies, turnout gear manufacturers, and textile and component manufacturers, accusing them of concealing the presence and dangers of PFAS in firefighter turnout gear.

While dozens of lawsuits have been filed over PFAS in turnout gear, this suit adds an new claim: the plaintiffs accuse the defendants of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO.

The suit was filed September 12, 2026, in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota as part of the multidistrict litigation, In re: Non-AFFF Firefighter Turnout Gear Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3191. The plaintiffs include fire departments and municipalities from across the country, ranging from the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Gary, Indiana, to several small volunteer fire companies in Texas and West Virginia.

Named as defendants are chemical manufacturers including 3M and several DuPont-related entities; turnout gear manufacturers including Globe, Lion, Fire-Dex, Morning Pride/Honeywell and Innotex; and manufacturers and suppliers of fabrics, moisture barriers and other components used in turnout gear.

The complaint alleges that PFAS — commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the body and environment — were incorporated throughout structural firefighting gear. According to the suit, PFAS were used in the outer shell, moisture barrier and other components to provide water and chemical resistance.

The plaintiffs contend the defendants knew for decades that PFAS were toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative, yet continued to manufacture and market turnout gear as safe protective equipment without disclosing the presence or hazards of the chemicals. The complaint alleges:

• “Despite that knowledge, Defendants did not disclose the presence or the dangers of PFAS in turnout gear. Instead, they marketed and sold the gear as safe, protective, and appropriate for firefighting, and affirmatively represented the gear as protective equipment that safeguarded the health of its wearers.”

The fire departments are not asserting personal-injury claims on behalf of firefighters. Rather, they claim economic losses and property damage resulting from purchasing PFAS-containing gear and from PFAS migrating from the gear into their facilities and equipment.

According to the complaint, PFAS can migrate from turnout gear through ordinary wear, abrasion, heat, off-gassing, shedding and laundering. The plaintiffs claim the chemicals have contaminated fire stations, turnout rooms, living and sleeping areas, apparatus interiors, SCBA, tools, extractors, ventilation systems and, in some instances, soil and water around fire facilities. They seek recovery of the costs associated with testing, removing, disposing of and replacing turnout gear, as well as testing and remediating other contaminated property.

What distinguishes the suit from other PFAS turnout-gear litigation is its RICO theory.

The plaintiffs allege that the chemical companies, component manufacturers and turnout gear manufacturers, together with trade associations and agents, constituted an association-in-fact enterprise they call the “PFAS Concealment Enterprise.” According to the complaint, its common purpose was:

• “to conceal the presence and dangers of PFAS in turnout gear and to continue manufacturing, marketing, and selling PFAS chemistries and PFAS-containing turnout gear at maximum profit while avoiding the costs of reformulation, warnings, remediation, and the development of safer PFAS-free alternatives.”

The complaint alleges that the companies were linked through their supply relationships, contracts, industry associations, participation in standard-setting and coordinated communications. It claims the chemical manufacturers supplied PFAS while suppressing information concerning toxicity; component manufacturers supplied PFAS-containing materials for protective clothing; and turnout gear manufacturers incorporated those materials into finished gear and marketed the gear as safe.

The alleged racketeering activity consists of mail fraud and wire fraud. The plaintiffs contend the defendants used mail and interstate communications to distribute catalogs, specifications, technical data, advertising and other materials that represented turnout gear as safe while failing to disclose PFAS.

The allegations also extend to representations concerning compliance with NFPA 1971 and related standards, third-party testing and certification, invoices and purchase documents, and communications with fire-service organizations, purchasing officials and standards organizations. The plaintiffs claim those communications concealed or misrepresented what the defendants knew about the toxicity, persistence, bioaccumulation and migration of PFAS.

Count I alleges that all of the defendants participated in the affairs of the PFAS Concealment Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Count II alleges a RICO conspiracy in violation of § 1962(d). The RICO counts seek treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

The complaint also alleges strict products liability for defective design and failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty. The plaintiffs seek recovery for the cost of testing, removing and replacing PFAS-containing gear, remediation of other property allegedly contaminated by PFAS, and other economic losses and damages.

The plaintiffs are:

1. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
2. City of Bucyrus, Ohio
3. Burlington Community Fire Protection District, Illinois
4. City of Calumet City, Illinois
5. Town of Central, South Carolina
6. City of Chelsea, Massachusetts
7. City of Cherryville, North Carolina
8. City of Chicago Heights, Illinois
9. Coal City Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., West Virginia
10. City of Corsicana, Texas
11. Village of Crestwood, Illinois
12. City of Evansville, Indiana
13. City of Gary, Indiana
14. Gassaway Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., West Virginia
15. Hitchcock Volunteer Fire Department, Texas
16. Town of Hopkinton, Massachusetts
17. Liberty Township Volunteer Fire Dept Inc of Porter County, Indiana
18. City of Loretto, Tennessee
19. City of Louisville, Ohio
20. Newton County, Georgia
21. Village of Oak Lawn, Illinois
22. City of Princeton, Indiana
23. Sigourney Fire Department, Inc., Iowa
24. City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska
25. City of South Charleston, West Virginia
26. Town of Stanley, North Carolina
27. City of Steubenville, Ohio
28. Wilderness Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., West Virginia

The named defendants are:

1. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company
2. The Chemours Company
3. The Chemours Company FC, LLC
4. Corteva, Inc.
5. DuPont de Nemours, Inc.
6. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EIDP)
7. Elevate Textiles, Inc.
8. Fire-Dex, LLC
9. Fire-Dex GW, LLC
10. Gentex Corporation
11. Globe Manufacturing Company, LLC
12. Honeywell International Inc.
13. Honeywell Safety Products USA, Inc.
14. Innotex Corp.
15. InterTech Group, Inc.
16. Lion Group, Inc.
17. Milliken & Company
18. Morning Pride Manufacturing, LLC, a/k/a Honeywell First Responder Products
19. PBI Performance Products, Inc.
20. Safety Components, Inc.
21. Southern Mills, Inc., d/b/a TenCate Protective Fabrics
22. Stedfast USA, Inc.
23. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.