Key Takeaways
Dueling lawsuits aimed at statements about PFAS use in the artificial turf industry will address whether statements about general industry practices can defame a specific company and whether the company's legal response would chill environmental advocacy.
In May, Grassroots Environmental Education and four affiliated individuals (collectively, "GEE") filed an anti-SLAAP lawsuit in New York State court against Polyloom Corporation of America ("Polyloom"), an artificial turf manufacturer. Compl., Grassroots Envtl. Educ. v. Polyloom Corp. Am., No. 611197/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cnty. May 23, 2025) ("GEE Compl."). Anti-SLAPP suits allow defendants to promptly dismiss lawsuits that are designed to hamper their speech and burden them with expensive litigation. GEE commenced the suit in response to a lawsuit filed by Polyloom in Tennessee federal court last year. In that case, as we previously reported, Polyloom claimed that GEE defamed and tortiously interfered with its business relations of making a PFAS-free artificial turf by alleging that most artificial turfs contain PFAS chemicals. Compl., Polyloom Corp. Am. v. Grassroots Envtl. Educ., Inc., 25-cv-14 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 20, 2025). Both lawsuits stem from GEE's statements about the manufacture of artificial turf products, including the use of PFAS and potential health risks.
In its anti-SLAPP suit, GEE argues that Polyloom's federal suit asserts baseless claims and was commenced to prevent the exercise of GEE's First Amendment right to speak about PFAS in artificial turf, which it alleges is a public health issue. GEE Compl.2, 33. Further, GEE maintains that its general statements about the artificial turf industry were not aimed at Polyloom's business because they were not "aware that Polyloom existed" or that Polyloom was making a PFAS-free artificial turf before the litigation. Id. at 8–9. GEE also alleges that Polyloom strategically filed its claims to take advantage of the Sixth Circuit case law on state anti-SLAPP laws, which is less amenable to early dismissal of lawsuits around matters of free speech or public interest. See id. at 29.
The outcome of GEE's anti-SLAPP claim may inform legal responses to blanket statements about industry practices, particularly for companies whose names and practices are not specifically identified.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
