Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

TECH NEWS

Gore-Tex manufacturer accused of running “misleading greenwashing campaign” while continuing to use “harmful” synthetics in its fabrics

WL Gore & Associates is accused of misleading consumers over its use of PFAS and the environmental harm caused by Gore-Tex fabric

The maker of Gore-Tex is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging that it engaged in a “greenwashing campaign” to hide the environmental impacts of PFAS — sometimes known as “forever chemicals” — from eco-conscious consumers.

Okay, so there’s quite a lot to unpack here. First of all, the maker of Gore-Tex is American multinational manufacturing company WL Gore & Associates. PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of synthetic chemicals that don’t break down easily in a natural environment. They have been widely used in the outdoor clothing industry in the past, including in the popular (but now discontinued) Gore-Tex Shakedry waterproof cycling jackets, although they’ve been increasingly sidelined over recent years due to concerns about their health and environmental impact. 

France has adopted new laws on PFAS this week, for example, and the European Union is working to phase them out, except where deemed essential. The US has a number of laws/regulations governing their use.

> How green is your waterproof cycling jacket?

Way back in 2017, Gore Fabrics set itself the goal of “working towards the elimination of PFCs [a subcategory of PFAS] of environmental concern from its durable water repellent (DWR) treatments and membrane manufacturing processes”, to be completed by 2023. 

Gore says that its next-generation Gore-Tex products use an ePE (expanded polyethylene) membrane that is “made without intentionally added per- and polyfluorinated substances”, although it may contain trace amounts.

Now a class-action lawsuit has been filed against WL Gore & Associates, alleging the company knowingly concealed its ongoing use of environmentally harmful PFAS in its waterproof jackets, shoes, clothing and other water-repellent products, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman, a law firm headquartered in Seattle, USA.

Hagens Berman says, “The lawsuit… accuses Gore of promising the public it was ‘committed to sustainability’ and ‘environmentally sound’ and that its laminates were ‘PFC* free’ and reflected ‘responsible performance’ all while continuing to use environmentally harmful PFAS in its manufacturing process. The complaint alleges Gore also failed to disclose to consumers that its Gore-Tex fabric leaches harmful PFAS into the environment and/or water supply during ordinary consumer use and while it’s being manufactured.”

“Because they do not break down in the environment, PFAS are harmful to our ecosystem, and under EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] declaration, there is no acceptable level of PFAS for human drinking water.”

> How to choose the right waterproof cycling jacket

The lawsuit states, “Gore’s greenwashing campaign misleads the public by purporting to be highly committed to environmental responsibility and at the forefront of sustainable manufacturing processes. But, in truth, Gore continues to produce Gore-Tex Fabric using PFAS...”

Attorneys allege that Gore’s “misleading greenwashing campaign” hides the truth that PFAS accumulates in the environment and sheds toxic chemicals.

“We believe that the nature-loving consumers buying Gore-Tex products have been hit where it hurts most,” says Steve Berman of Hagens Berman. “They were misled about the environmental impacts of the outdoor gear they purchased. 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 130-page class action complaint alleges that Gore has in recent years told consumers that its products are “non-toxic and safe for the user” and pose no threat to the environment, despite containing PFAS.

Hagens Berman says, “In 2021, Gore announced it had developed a new membrane that uses expanded polyethylene [ePE], which is not a PFAS, and that it intended to use this to replace existing PFAS in all of its products. Gore also announced it had developed a new durable PFAS-free waterproof treatment. But Gore does not disclose to consumers that only its line of next-generation products will be made in this manner, and that Gore still includes PFASs in its manufacturing and products.
Steve Berman said, “We seek to represent anyone who unknowingly purchased Gore-Tex gear believing Gore’s promises of ‘performance for the planet’. We believe what Gore tells its customers is untrue.”

The complaint says, “Instead of coming clean on its use of PFAS and their environmental consequences, Gore instead opted to embark on a significant greenwashing campaign full of material misrepresentations and omissions designed to deceive eco-conscious consumers and safeguard Gore’s profits.”

According to the lawsuit, PFAS sheds during ordinary use in Gore-Tex products, meaning that wearers are contaminating the environment while trying to stay dry. The complaint also talks about PFAS leaching into the environment during the manufacturing process, and when washing PFAS-coated clothing.

“From this, contaminated water is spread into land, sent to landfills or otherwise in the water cycle, impacting water, soil and air,” says Hagens Berman.

“The lawsuit brings claims of fraudulent concealment, unfair trade practices, deceptive trade and violations of dozens of state consumer protection laws. The proposed class 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 says it is investigating Gore-Tex apparel and accessories made with a durable fabric membrane that has been treated with a water-repellent coating, or Gore-Tex membrane, and sold between 2018 and 2024.

Hagens Berman says its team is experienced in consumer-rights cases and litigation protecting the environment, having tackled cases including Volkswagen’s diesel emissions scandal ($14.7 billion settlement).

You can read the entire class action complaint here.

WL Gore & Associates provided this response: “W.L. Gore & Associates denies these meritless allegations and will defend ourselves through the legal process. We stand firmly behind our representations, statements, and advertisements regarding our commitment to environmental responsibility, as well as the performance and safety of our Gore-Tex products.

“Gore has never intentionally misled people or misrepresented our materials. Our use of per- and polyfluorinated substances is well documented on our Gore-Tex brand and enterprise websites.

“Since our initial work with Greenpeace in 2015, we have remained engaged and responsive to evolving market expectations as we strive to always clearly and effectively communicate regarding a complex topic that lacked commonly agreed upon terminology and definitions.”

Mat has been in cycling media since 1996, on titles including BikeRadar, Total Bike, Total Mountain Bike, What Mountain Bike and Mountain Biking UK, and he has been editor of 220 Triathlon and Cycling Plus. Mat has been road.cc technical editor for over a decade, testing bikes, fettling the latest kit, and trying out the most up-to-the-minute clothing. He has won his category in Ironman UK 70.3 and finished on the podium in both marathons he has run. Mat is a Cambridge graduate who did a post-grad in magazine journalism, and he is a winner of the Cycling Media Award for Specialist Online Writer. Now over 50, he's riding road and gravel bikes most days for fun and fitness rather than training for competitions.

Add new comment

16 comments

Avatar
Daclu Trelub | 4 weeks ago
0 likes

I've never found Goretex to be worth a toss anyway.

Avatar
Blackthorne | 4 weeks ago
0 likes

Not that I have any knife in this fight, but this sounds like lawyers finding new ways to enrich themselves under the guise of pretending to give two sh*ts about the environment. Sounds like greenwashing works both ways. 

Avatar
Steve K replied to Blackthorne | 4 weeks ago
1 like

Blackthorne wrote:

Not that I have any knife in this fight, but this sounds like lawyers finding new ways to enrich themselves under the guise of pretending to give two sh*ts about the environment. Sounds like greenwashing works both ways. 

Isn't the expression "I don't have a dog in this fight", not "knife"?

(Sorry, that's just an irrelevant aside.)

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Steve K | 4 weeks ago
4 likes

A dog's harder to fit in your jersey pocket, though.

Avatar
Daclu Trelub replied to mdavidford | 4 weeks ago
2 likes

mdavidford wrote:

A dog's harder to fit in your jersey pocket, though.

But you can have a dog longer than three inches.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Daclu Trelub | 3 weeks ago
1 like

Never bring a chihuahua to a dachshund fight?

Avatar
brooksby | 1 month ago
0 likes

Don't worry, Gore: the Orange One will probably soon make the use, and possibly the consumption, of PFAS compulsory after he read this TikTok article this one time and nobody dared to tell him that is was bollux...  3

 

Avatar
mdavidford replied to brooksby | 1 month ago
5 likes

Unlikely. Not once he hears that it'll 'help Gore'.

Avatar
froze | 1 month ago
2 likes

I gurantee you this is happening to millions of products sold all over the world.

Avatar
galibiervelo | 1 month ago
2 likes

Looking forward to see how this is playing out. For garment companies the PFAS fabrics are 'generally' no longer available. For the fabric mills - effective DWR are mostly applied after the fabric is woven/knitted. With PFAS now banned the fabrics and garments may be not as durable and may have reduced their lifespan,  thus prompting earlier repurchase. 

PFAS are in most cases inert. So if 3 grams of PFAS (liquid plastic) can extend the lifespan of a 300 gram nylon/polyester (plastic) jacket is the planet better or worse off?

We purchase fabrics one year ahead of production, so compliant factories havn't been adding traditional DWR for 2+ years, so I imagine 50% of available rainwear stock on the market still has 'old' DWR with the replacement ' material performance' improvers... getting better.

Avatar
DrG82 replied to galibiervelo | 4 weeks ago
0 likes

I don't think you can directly compare PFAS with polyesters and nylons, PFAS have been shown to have significant biological impacts and are much more durable etc. Also, PFAS are used in multiple places on a waterproof item, membranes and DWR, these have different impacts. You do however have a point about use vs durability or functional impact. PFAS are used in such a range of places eg. to make children's clothes stain resistant or to make aircraft seats fire retardant. One is saving a chore and some washing detergent, the other could save lives. A good start would be to phase out the use of these chemicals for frivolous things, where a waterproof jacket falls in the scale of frivolous to essential is a debate to be had.

Avatar
Ted Liddle | 1 month ago
3 likes

No mention of Paramo which I swear by. Works superby well, comfortable to wear and made to VERY high environmental standards 

Avatar
quiff replied to Ted Liddle | 1 month ago
9 likes

No, there's no mention of Paramo. Because it's an article about a class action against Gore.  

Avatar
No Reply replied to quiff | 1 month ago
7 likes

Correct. But it was a brilliant opportunity to showcase his picture. 

Avatar
momove replied to No Reply | 1 month ago
3 likes

To be fair, if I had that photo I'd be posting it everywhere too.

Avatar
levestane replied to momove | 4 weeks ago
2 likes

I wonder what the same view will look like in 2035?

Latest Comments