PFAS Out, Libel In: Testing the Boundaries of Defamation and Tortious Interference

In a recent complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division, plaintiff Polyloom Corporation of America d/b/a TenCate Grass North America, Inc. (“Polyloom”) alleges that defendant Grassroots Environmental Education (“GEE”) and others engaged in defamation and tortious interference with Polyloom’s business relations by asserting that PFAS can be found in “most artificial turf fields” and poses health risks. Compl., Polyloom Corp. America v. Grassroots Envtl. Educ., inc. et. al., No. 25 cv 00014 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 20, 2025). Polyloom makes and sells artificial turf and has recently developed PFAS-free turf. Although Polyloom is not specifically mentioned by GGE, Polyloom asserts that it is “inherently tied to the overall health and perception of the artificial turf industry” and “[any] harm to the artificial turf category directly affects [its] reputation, operations and market position.” Id. at 3-4.

This emergent litigation challenges whether blanket statements that do not account for new developments, and possibly tarnish the reputation of certain product types, may continue to be shared once a new product hits the market. Polyloom contends that GEE made false and misleading statements when it ignored the company’s pioneering efforts in the artificial turf fields space to release PFAS-free turf. It is uncertain whether the allegations are sufficient to support the defamation or tortious interference claims given that GEE does not appear to have made statements directly about Polyloom or its products and practices. If Polyloom’s case continues, it may empower Polyloom’s with innovative products to counter misleading statements that might otherwise dissuade potential consumers from purchasing such products.