The plaintiffs allege that Costco’s wipes—marketed as “made with naturally derived ingredients” and suitable for sensitive skin—contained detectable levels of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), which have been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, liver toxicity, and immune suppression. Independent lab tests conducted by a Department of Defense-certified laboratory identified approximately 3.7 parts per billion of organic fluorine in the wipes, a known indicator of PFAS contamination.
In February 2025, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg initially dismissed the complaint for lack of specificity. However, an amended complaint filed in April introduced detailed findings about the chemical types and concentrations involved, compelling the court to reinstate the case in May.
The court’s latest ruling denied Costco’s motion to dismiss, stating that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged both the presence of harmful chemicals and reliance on misleading advertising. “The plaintiffs have established a reasonable inference that the wipes contained PFAS and that this contradicts the marketing language,” Seeborg wrote in his opinion.
The lawsuit accuses Costco and Nice-Pak of violating consumer protection statutes in California and New York, as well as federal regulations governing express warranties, product misrepresentation, and deceptive labeling. The case—Bullard v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 4:24-cv-03714—has now entered the discovery phase, where evidence will be gathered through expert depositions, internal communications, and further testing.
Legal analysts say this case is emblematic of a broader litigation wave targeting PFAS in everyday goods. “We are witnessing a legal turning point,” said environmental law expert Lisa Peretti. “The focus is shifting from industrial PFAS contamination to consumer-level exposure and corporate accountability.”
The progression of this lawsuit underscores the increasing importance of supply chain transparency and chemical disclosure for retailers. Although Costco has not issued a public statement since the court’s ruling, industry insiders note that litigation risks around PFAS are likely to intensify across personal care and baby care categories.
Consumer advocacy groups are already calling for stricter labeling standards and pre-market safety testing of products labeled as “natural,” “non-toxic,” or “for sensitive skin.” Meanwhile, brands seeking to maintain consumer trust will need to prioritize third-party testing and public disclosure of any PFAS-related findings.
With class certification expected to be addressed later in 2025, affected consumers in California, New York, and beyond may soon be eligible for participation. While no settlement has been announced, legal observers suggest that mounting pressure and negative publicity could prompt Costco to explore resolution options before trial.
