ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF GEORGETOWN
C/A No.: 2025-CP-22-_____
Georgetown County Water and Sewer
District,
Plaintiff,
vs. SUMMONS

Fiber Industries, LLC f/k/a Fiber Industries, (Jury Trial Demanded)

Inc.,
Defendant.

TO: THE DEFENDANT ABOVE-NAMED:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED AND REQUIRED to answer the Complaint in this

action, a copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer thereto

on the subscriber at the address listed below, within thirty (30) days after the service hereof,

exclusive of the day of such service; and if you fail to answer the Complaint within the time

aforesaid, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the

Complaint. Any answer that you serve the parties to this action must be filed with the Clerk of

this Court within a reasonable period of time after service.

s/Amy L.B. Hill____________________

Amy L.B. Hill, SC Bar No.: 68541
William C. Lewis, SC Bar No.: 101287
Richardson Thomas, LLC
1513 Hampton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
T: 803-281-8150
F: 803-632-8263
amy@richardsonthomas.com
will@richardsonthomas.com

and

Jeffrey E. Friedman
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Jeffrey E. (Jay) Friedman, Jr.
(pro hac vice admission pending)
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
Matthew D. Conn
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Madison M. Gitschier
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Friedman, Dazzio & Zulanas, P.C.
3800 Corporate Woods Drive
Birmingham, AL 35242
T: 205-278-7057
F: 205-278-7001
jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
jayfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
mconn@friedman-lawyers.com
mgitschier@friedman-lawyers.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

January 6, 2025
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF GEORGETOWN
C/A No.: 2025-CP-22-_____
Georgetown County Water and Sewer
District,
Plaintiff,
vs. COMPLAINT

Fiber Industries, LLC f/k/a Fiber Industries, (Jury Trial Demanded)

Inc.,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Georgetown County Water and Sewer District (“GCWSD”), by and through the

undersigned counsel, brings this action against Defendant Fiber Industries, LLC f/k/a Fiber

Industries, Inc. (“Defendant”) herein as follows:

GCWSD seeks damages related to the release of chemicals that have invaded,

contaminated and trespassed into GCWSD’s drinking water supply and wastewater, and have

caused and will cause GCWSD to incur extensive additional capital and operating expenses to

remove such chemicals from its drinking water and wastewater effluent. GCWSD sets forth in

detail the parties, facts, legal claims, and damages with particularity, as follows:

BACKGROUND

1. Many of South Carolina’s textile manufacturers have used a family of chemicals,

referred to as “PFAS” 1 or “forever chemicals,” to impart stain resistant and non-stick properties to

1
Unless otherwise delineated, the term “PFAS” or “PFAS Chemicals” in this Complaint refers to
any per- or poly-fluoroalkyl substance that contains at least one fully fluorinated methyl or
methylene carbon atom (without any hydrogen, chlorine, bromine, or iodine atom attached to),
collectively, related chemicals that degrade to PFAS/PFOA/PFOS, and any precursors to
PFAS/PFOA/PFOS, including, but not limited to, PFOA, PFOS, Gen-X, HFPO-DA, NEtFOSAA,
NMeFOSAA, PFBS, PFDA, PFDoA, PFHpA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFTrDA, PFTA, PFUnA,
11Cl0PF3OUdS, 9Cl-PF3ONS, ADONA, PFPeS, PFHpS, 4:2 FTS (1H, 1H, 2H, 2H,-
perfluorohexane sulfonic acid), 6:2 FTS (1H, 1H, 2H, 2H,-perfluorohexane sulfonic acid), 8:2 FTS
(1H, 1H, 2H, 2H,-perfluorohexane sulfonic acid), PFBA, PFPeA, PFMBA, PFMPA, PFEESA,
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
textiles. PFAS are also commonly used in metal finishing, paper finishing, plastics coating, and

aerospace industries, among others, for its ability to repel water, dirt, and oil, among other things.

2. The Waccamaw River, which GCWSD relies upon as its primary source of drinking

water, contains PFAS in concentrations in excess of what the Environmental Protection Agency

(“EPA”) now considers safe. GCWSD relies on the water from the Waccamaw River to provide

up to 8 million gallons of drinking water per day to approximately 18,500 customers.

3. PFAS do not break down in the environment and, according to one of 3M’s lead

scientists, persist longer in nature than most rocks. The environmental sink of PFAS is not

sediment or vegetation, but rather, biota—human and animal tissue. According to the EPA, PFAS

are known to be bio-persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic. PFAS are an endocrine disruptor

which can cause an array of adverse health effects, including but not limited to various cancers

and birth defects.

4. Defendant, at all times relevant to this Complaint, has manufactured, sold, used

and/or caused the unauthorized discharge of PFAS into the Waccamaw River, which GCWSD

uses as its drinking water intake.

5. PFAS are self-propelled and highly mobile once released into the environment.

6. Defendant’s PFAS enter the environment via several different pathways: direct

discharge from an industrial point source; “pass through” contamination from wastewater or

leachate containing PFAS introduced into conventional wastewater treatment plants incapable of

removing PFAS prior to discharge; and groundwater contamination from manufacturing facilities.

and NFDHA. It is GCWSD’s intention that this definition is as broad, expansive, and inclusive as
possible.
2
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
7. The unique properties of PFAS make them resistant to conventional water and

wastewater treatment. Defendant knew or should have known for decades that PFAS resist

conventional water and wastewater treatment technologies.

8. PFAS may only be removed from water and wastewater using sophisticated

treatment technologies such as reverse osmosis (“RO”) or granulated activated carbon (“GAC”).

Nonetheless, Defendant continued to manufacture, use, discharge, inadequately warn, and

improperly dispose of PFAS through conventional wastewater treatment plants upstream of where

GCWSD draws its drinking water, thus adversely impacting both GCWSD’s drinking water and

its wastewater.

9. Recently, the EPA announced heightened regulations for certain PFAS. The new

maximum contaminant level (“MCL”) mandates that the two primary types of PFAS, PFOA and

PFOS, shall not exceed four parts per trillion (“ppt”) in public drinking water. The EPA has also

implemented a 10 ppt standard for commonly used “short chain” PFAS compounds: PFHxS,

PFNA, and HFPO-DA. Additionally, the MCL contains a “Hazard Index” which regulates other

commonly used PFAS chemicals as a group according to combined toxicity.

10. In addition to the binding MCLs and Hazard Index for these PFAS, the EPA has

also established a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (“MCLG”) of 0.0 ppt for PFOS and

PFOA—meaning there is no level of PFOS or PFOA “at which no known or anticipated adverse

effects on the health of persons” may occur.

11. As it stands, GCWSD currently utilizes legacy water treatment technology which

features a chlorine disinfectant process that is incapable of removing PFAS from source water.

Through no fault of its own, GCWSD must upgrade its facilities to adequately address Defendant’s

3
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
PFAS, remain in compliance with federal and state regulations, and meet its duty of providing safe

and clean drinking water to its customers.

12. GCWSD will be forced to incur substantially increased capital and operating

expenses related to PFAS removal from drinking water and wastewater. GCWSD seeks

compensation from Defendant for these PFAS-related expenses.

PARTIES

I. Plaintiff Georgetown County Water & Sewer District

13. Plaintiff GCWSD is a Special Purpose District in South Carolina and is a public

water and sewer utility organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina, which operates a

water and sewer system to enhance the health, safety, and general well-being of its citizens.

14. GCWSD, among other responsibilities, provides drinking water to its customers.

15. GCWSD owns and operates a drinking water filtration plant and related facilities

as well as four wastewater treatment facilities.

16. GCWSD obtains untreated raw water primarily from the Waccamaw River. Water

from groundwater wells is also used as a backup source. The present capacity allows for the

filtration of up to 8 million gallons per day of raw water.

17. Drinking water is processed by GCWSD’s water filtration plant and delivered to

customers through the potable water distribution system.

18. GCWSD’s Waccamaw Neck Water Treatment Plant is located at 1975 Sandy Island

Rd., Pawley’s Island, South Carolina 29585, and draws water from the Waccamaw River. The

Waccamaw Neck Water Treatment Plant has a rated capacity to produce 8 million gallons of

drinking water per day.

4
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
19. In addition to treating and providing drinking water through the Waccamaw Neck

Water Treatment Plant, GCWSD also owns and operates four wastewater treatment plants: the

Debordieu Wastewater Treatment Plant, located at 280 Firehouse Street, Georgetown, South

Carolina 29440; the Murrells Inlet Wastewater Treatment Plant, located at 1441 Pond Road,

Murrells Inlet, South Carolina 29576; the North Santee Wastewater Treatment Plant, located at

566 Earl Road, Georgetown, South Carolina 29440; and the Pawley’s Island Wastewater

Treatment Plant, located at 456 Clearwater Rd. Pawley’s Island, South Carolina 29585.

20. GCWSD’s wastewater treatment plants utilize conventional treatment technologies

that are incapable of removing Defendant’s PFAS prior to discharge.

21. At all times relevant hereto, GCWSD has suffered substantial damage to its

property and property interests.

22. Because PFAS are resistant to conventional treatment technology, GCWSD’s water

treatment facilities and wastewater facilities must be upgraded to remove Defendant’s PFAS to

levels deemed safe by the Federal Government.

23. GCWSD has been and continues to be damaged due to the negligent, willful, and

wanton conduct of the Defendant, as well as the continuous nuisance and trespass caused by

Defendant’s past and present manufacture, use, purchase, sale, supply, discharge, and release of

PFAS into its water and wastewater.

24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, GCWSD has suffered,

and will continue to suffer, substantial economic and consequential damage, including but not

limited to: past and future expenses associated with the testing and monitoring of PFAS

contamination levels in GCWSD’s raw water, and drinking water; past and future expenses

associated with testing, monitoring, and installing temporary emergency filtration and pumping

5
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
systems; pilot program costs associated with permanent filtration systems capable of removing

Defendant’s PFAS from GCWSD’s drinking water; past and future costs associated with the

purchase, installation, and operation of permanent filtration systems capable of removing

Defendant’s PFAS from GCWSD’s drinking water and wastewater; costs associated with

remediating GCWSD’s existing treatment and pumping facilities; damage to goodwill and

reputation; and lost revenue and sales. In addition, GCWSD seeks past, present, and future

engineering, operating, and maintenance costs.

25. GCWSD seeks compensatory and punitive damages to the fullest extent allowed

by South Carolina law. This includes but is not limited to compensatory damages to upgrade

GCWSD’s water and wastewater treatment technology to be able to remove all PFAS from

drinking water and wastewater, filtration equipment, piping, and other necessary infrastructure.

GCWSD also seeks damages for increased operational expenses associated with the operation of

these facilities, such as increased electrical expenses, staffing expenses, and proper disposal of any

associated byproducts related to PFAS treatment.

II. Defendant

26. Fiber Industries, LLC (“Darling Fibers”) f/k/a Fiber Industries, Inc. is a

domestic limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of South Carolina.

Darling Fibers operates a textile mill located at 1000 E. McIver Road, Darlington, South Carolina

29531. Darling Fibers utilizes PFAS as part of its processes. Darling Fibers discharges wastewater

containing PFAS upstream from where GCWSD draws its drinking water. Due to the persistent

nature of PFAS chemicals, PFAS discharged by Darling Fibers continues to invade, trespass,

injure, and create a nuisance by entering GCWSD’s drinking water supply in Georgetown County,

South Carolina.

6
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
DISCLAIMER

27. This lawsuit is brought under the laws of the State of South Carolina. GCWSD

asserts no federal cause of action, invokes no federal statutes, and seeks no relief based on any

federal statute or laws.

28. Any federal claims are expressly disclaimed by GCWSD.

29. GCWSD makes no claim, and asserts no cause of action, to implicate that the

manufacture, sale, or use of AFFF in any way caused or contributed to cause the damages, or the

claims, asserted in this lawsuit. GCWSD expressly disclaims any cause of action or damages

arising from or associated with AFFF manufacture, sale, use, or disposal by the named Defendant,

or by any unnamed defendant or entities, including any legal or factual claim based on alleged

“Mil Spec AFFF.” GCWSD expressly disclaims any potential claims arguably arising from any

federal enclaves, including any military installations or other locations that may have used AFFF

pursuant to military specifications. This case is brought against the Defendant in their capacities

as private manufacturers and users of PFAS.

30. GCWSD makes no claim, and asserts no cause of action, against any upstream

publicly owned wastewater treatment plants.

NO CLASS ACTION PARTICIPATION

31. Defendant has been sued in other cases involving allegations of PFAS pollution to

public water systems. In 2023, 3M and DuPont settled nationwide, multi-district, class-action

claims related to the contamination of public water supplies with PFAS for approximately $10

billion and $1 billion, respectively. See In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability

Litigation, MDL No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG (D.S.C.) (“AFFF Litigation”).

7
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
32. Prospective class members in the AFFF Litigation had the option of “opting out”

of the 3M and DuPont settlements in order to pursue individual lawsuits against 3M and DuPont.

GCWSD validly and timely exercised its right to “opt out” of the AFFF Litigation Class Action

Settlements with 3M and DuPont in order to pursue their claims in this lawsuit. GCWSD has

received confirmation from the Notice Administrator overseeing these settlements that it’s opt-

outs were in fact “compliant.”

33. Judge Richard Gergel, the United States District Court Judge for the District of

South Carolina overseeing the AFFF Litigation, ultimately entered orders of final approval on the

3M and DuPont settlements. At no time has 3M, DuPont, or any other party raised objections to

GCWSD’s decision to opt-out from the class settlements.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

34. This lawsuit is brought under the laws of the State of South Carolina. GCWSD

asserts no federal causes of action, invokes no federal statutes and seeks no relief that is based on

any federal statute or laws. Any federal claims are expressly disclaimed.

35. Complete diversity does not exist between GCWSD and Defendant. This case

arises out of the manufacture, supply, use, and disposal of PFAS in the carpet, textile, chemical,

finishing, and other related industries, as well as the improper disposal of leachate and/or

wastewater containing PFAS. GCWSD makes no claim that the manufacture or use of AFFF in

any way caused or contributed to their damages or the claims asserted in this lawsuit.

36. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to S.C. Code Sections 15-7-20(1) and 15-7-

30(F)(1) as the most substantial part of the alleged act or omission, the contamination of GCWSD’s

drinking water and wastewater systems by Defendant’s chemicals, occurred in Georgetown

County, South Carolina.

8
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Defendant Have Known for Decades That “Long-Chain” PFAS are a Threat to
Human Health and the Environment.

37. PFAS are man-made, synthetic chemicals used to impart oil-, water-, and stain

resistance to various products, including carpet, paper, and textiles. The same chemical properties

that provide enhanced soil-resistant attributes also make PFAS resistant to degradation, allowing

them to persist in the environment.

38. PFAS are known to the EPA and Defendant as “forever chemicals” because these

man-made chemicals persist in the environment for extremely prolonged periods and do not

degrade like other chemicals. PFAS accumulate in the human body through the process of

bioaccumulation. In fish and mammals, PFAS accumulate, build, and increase through

biomagnification.

39. PFAS also migrate through surface water and groundwater, allowing PFAS

compounds to travel long distances while causing extensive contamination.

40. Since PFAS do not degrade naturally and are synthetic “forever chemicals,” PFAS

released into the environment decades ago will remain present and will continue causing pollution

that is a threat to public health, unless removed by very specific, sophisticated filtration methods.

41. Although there are thousands of chemical substances that fall under the PFAS

umbrella, the two most notorious PFAS chemicals are perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”) and

perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”).

42. PFOS and PFOA are considered “long-chain” PFAS (sometimes referred to as “C-

8” chemistries), because they contain eight (8) fluorinated carbon atoms. Defendant knew that,

because of the strong carbon-fluorine bond, PFOS and PFOA do not degrade naturally in the

environment.

9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
43. According to the EPA, 3M was the sole manufacturer of PFOS in the United States

and the principal manufacturer of PFOS worldwide. Upon information and belief, 3M supplied

PFOS and/or products containing or degrading into PFOS to the PFAS Users for use in their

manufacturing processes.

44. The PFAS Manufacturers all manufactured PFOA and/or products containing or

degrading into PFOA. Upon information and belief, DuPont, Daikin, and 3M supplied PFOA

and/or products containing or degrading into PFOA to the PFAS Users for use in their

manufacturing processes.

45. 3M and DuPont began studying the toxicity of PFOS and PFOA as early as the

1950s and 1960s.

46. By the 1970s, 3M and DuPont were aware that their products persisted indefinitely

in the environment. 3M also knew at this time that its C-8 products were present in the blood of

the general population.

47. In the 1970s and 1980s, 3M began conducting animal studies to determine the

possible carcinogenicity of PFAS chemicals. One such study, an investigation into the effects of

PFOS on rhesus monkeys, had to be aborted prior to the conclusion of the study “[b]ecause of

unexpected early mortalities in all monkeys at all levels” of PFOS dosage. In 1978, a 3M

interoffice correspondence concluded that “[r]ecent animal studies have shown that FC-95 [PFOS]

is more toxic than was previously believed.”

48. By the 1980s and 1990s, 3M and DuPont were fully aware that PFOS and PFOA

were toxic and persistent in the environment and that conventional treatment methods were

ineffective at removing these pollutants. Nevertheless, the two companies actively hid their

10
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
findings from regulators and the general public. In 1988, a 3M internal memo raised concerns that

3M had “perpetuate[d] the myth that these fluorochemical surfactants are biodegradable.”

49. In 1997, 3M prepared a Material Safety Data Sheet (“MSDS”) for a product

containing PFAS. The MSDS contained the following warning:

50. This warning was removed from subsequent MSDSs.

51. In the late 1990s, 3M began a comprehensive, multi-city investigation into the

extent of its PFAS pollution.

52. 3M also concluded during this investigation that reverse osmosis is the only

treatment method capable of removing all PFAS.

53. In 1999, Richard Purdy, one of 3M’s lead scientists on the multi-city study,

resigned from his position due to his “profound disappointment in 3M’s handling of the

environmental risks associated with the manufacture and use of perfluorinated sulfonates (PFOS)

. . . and its precursors.” See Purdy Letter dated March 28, 1999.

54. Mr. Purdy’s letter, which was also sent to a representative of the EPA, further stated

that PFOS “is the most insidious pollutant since PCB” and “more stable than many rocks.” Id.

55. Following Mr. Purdy’s letter, the EPA began an investigation into PFOS after

receiving data that “PFOS was persistent, unexpectedly toxic, and bioaccumulative (PBT).”

Federal Register/Vol. 68, 2003.

56. During its subsequent investigation of 3M, the EPA disclosed that “following

negotiations with EPA, 3M . . . announced that it will voluntarily phase out perfluorooctanyl

sulfonate (“PFOS”) chemistry.” The EPA determined that PFOS was toxic and accumulated to a

11
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
high degree in humans and animals. The EPA’s preliminary risk assessment found unacceptable

margins of exposure for workers and possibly the general population exposed to PFOS.

57. The EPA concluded that “PFOS represents an unacceptable technology that should

be eliminated to protect human health and the environment from potentially severe long-term

consequences.” Shortly thereafter, the EPA expanded its investigation to perfluorooctanoic acid

(PFOA), stating it “was concerned in part because 3M had also found PFOA in human blood

during the studies on PFOS.”

58. Despite the fact that 3M announced that it was withdrawing PFOS and PFOA from

the market in 2000, DuPont and Daikin continued to manufacture and/or use PFOA with full

knowledge that these substances had been withdrawn by 3M due to environmental and potential

health risks to the public.

59. Upon information and belief, the PFAS Users continued to purchase, use, and

discharge PFOA and products containing or degrading into PFOA despite the fact that 3M had

withdrawn from the PFOS and PFOA markets due to potential environmental risks and health risks

to the public.

60. In 2005, DuPont paid $10.25 million—the largest civil administrative penalty ever

obtained by the EPA under any federal environmental statute—to settle claims brought by the EPA

alleging that DuPont withheld information concerning PFOA in violation of the Toxic Substances

Control Act (“TSCA”) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”).

61. In 2006, 3M paid $1.5 million to settle claims brought by the EPA alleging that 3M

violated TSCA by failing to disclose information concerning PFOS.

62. By 2006, the majority of an EPA Science Advisory Board expert committee had

recommended that PFOA be considered “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Similarly, an

12
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
independent C-8 Science Panel identified kidney cancer and testicular cancer as having a “probable

link” to PFOA exposure based on epidemiological and other data in the Mid-Ohio Valley.

63. Defendant knew or should have known that PFOS and PFOA are persistent and

bioaccumulative. Defendant knew or should have known that conventional wastewater and

drinking water treatment systems are incapable of removing PFOS and PFOA from water supplies.

Nevertheless, the Defendant in this case supplied, used, purchased, and/or accepted PFOS and

PFOA, and/or products containing or degrading into PFOS and PFOA, without using adequate

care to prevent the contamination of GCWSD’s water supply.

64. PFOS and PFOA manufactured, used, and discharged by Defendant are still present

at dangerously high levels in the Waccamaw River, GCWSD’s drinking water supply. Defendant

is still discharging wastewater, leachate, stormwater, and other types of wastewater containing

PFOS and PFOA, or precursors of PFOS and PFOA, upstream of GCWSD’s drinking water intake.

65. Defendant has operated, and/or are currently operating manufacturing facilities

related to PFAS and products that contain or degrade into PFAS. The PFAS Manufacturers use

PFAS as part of their manufacturing processes or otherwise supply PFAS or products that contain

or degrade into PFAS to various industries.

66. PFAS, and products that contain or degrade into PFAS, are manufactured, and sold

by the PFAS Manufacturers to the PFAS Users. In many instances, the PFAS Manufacturers

controlled the PFAS Users’ application and use of PFAS-containing products. These products are

subsequently discharged both directly and indirectly into the Waccamaw River, as well as other

tributaries and watersheds that ultimately discharge into the Waccamaw River upstream of

GCWSD’s drinking water intake in Georgetown County, South Carolina.

13
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
67. In some instances, PFAS Manufacturers also use PFAS chemicals and discharge or

have discharged the same upstream of GCWSD’s drinking water.

68. Because PFAS continues to invade GCWSD’s drinking water and wastewater,

PFAS Manufacturers and PFAS Users have caused and contributed, and are still causing and

contributing to, a continuous nuisance and trespass through their past and present manufacture,

use, purchase, sale, supply, discharge, and/or release of PFAS and products that contain or degrade

into PFAS.

II. “Short-Chain” PFAS

69. After 3M phased out “long-chain” PFAS, it began selling “short-chain” PFAS

compounds (sometimes referred to as “C-6” and “C-4” chemistries), and/or products that contained

or degraded into “short-chain” PFAS, to the PFAS Users. DuPont and Daikin eventually converted

to “short-chain” PFAS as well. The PFAS Manufacturers knew that these “short-chain” products

actually contained “long-chain” PFAS as an impurity, or otherwise contained precursor

compounds that would degrade into long-chain PFAS.

70. The “short-chain” PFAS compounds sold and/or used by the PFAS Manufacturers

included and/or degraded into PFBS, PFBA, PFHxA, PFPeA, Gen-X, and more.

71. Defendant knew or should have known that that these “short-chain” PFAS

compounds were just as toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative as their “long-chain” predecessors.

Defendant also knew or should have known that conventional wastewater and drinking water

treatment systems are incapable of removing “short-chain” PFAS from water supplies.

Nevertheless, Defendant supplied, used, purchased, and/or accepted “short-chain” PFAS, and/or

products containing or degrading into “short-chain” PFAS, without using adequate care to prevent

the contamination of Plaintiffs’ water supply.

14
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
72. Upon information and belief, Defendant continues to supply, use, purchase, accept,

and/or discharge “short-chain” PFAS, and/or products containing or degrading into “short-chain”

PFAS, without using adequate care to prevent the contamination of GCWSD’s water supply or

wastewater effluent, to this day.

III. PFAS Regulations

73. In 2009, EPA issued a Provisional Health Advisory for drinking water, which set

advisory levels of 400 parts per trillion (“ppt”) for PFOA and 200 ppt for PFOS in drinking water.

74. In May of 2016, the EPA published a Lifetime Health Advisory for drinking water,

which set the levels at 70 ppt combined for PFOA and PFOS. This Health Advisory was based on

“studies of the effects of PFOA and PFOS on laboratory animals” and “epidemiological studies to

human populations” which “indicate that exposure to PFOA and PFOS over certain levels may

result in adverse health effects, including developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy or to

breastfed infants (e.g., low birth weight, accelerated puberty, skeletal variations), cancer (e.g.,

testicular, kidney), liver effects (e.g., tissue damage), immune effects (e.g., antibody production

and immunity), thyroid effects and other effects (e.g., cholesterol changes).”

75. In 2022, the EPA updated the 2016 Health Advisory for PFOS and PFOA in

drinking water, which dramatically lowered the recommended limits to .02 ppt for PFOS and .004

ppt for PFOA. The EPA also set levels for two “short-chain” PFAS: PFBS and Gen-X.

76. In March of 2023, the EPA proposed a National Primary Drinking Water

Regulation (“NPDWR”) to establish legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels

(“MCLs”) for six PFAS in drinking water: PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, and Gen-X. The

EPA finalized the NPDWR in April 2024.

15
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
77. Under the NPDWR, public water systems, including GCWSD, will be required to

provide drinking water with no more than 4 ppt PFOS and 4 ppt PFOA.

78. Moreover, the NPDWR will require that public water systems, including GCWSD,

remove PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, and Gen-X from their drinking water pursuant to a Hazard Index.

Under this Hazard Index, combined concentrations of these compounds may additionally

constitute a violation even where each individual compound is lower than the MCL.

79. In announcing the new MCLs, the EPA stated that it “expects that over many years

the final rule will prevent PFAS exposure in drinking water for approximately100 million people,

prevent thousands of deaths, and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS attributable illnesses.”

80. Pursuant to the NPDWR, EPA also proposed “health-based” Maximum

Contaminant Level Goals (“MCLGs”) for PFOS and PFOA at zero ppt.

81. The EPA explained the decision-making process behind its proposed MCLGs:

“Following a systematic review of available human epidemiological and animal toxicity studies,

EPA has determined that PFOA and PFOS are likely to cause cancer (e.g., kidney and liver cancer)

and that there is no dose below which either chemical is considered safe.”

82. Finally, on April 19, 2024, the EPA formally designated PFOS and PFOA as

Hazardous Substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act (“CERCLA”). According to the EPA, the designation of PFOS and PFOA as

Hazardous Substances under CERCLA is designed to ensure that those responsible for the

contamination pay to clean it up.

IV. PFAS Pollution In and Around the Waccamaw River

83. GCWSD draws its raw water from the Waccamaw River, which empties into

Winyah Bay, which is heavily influenced by the tide. Any pollutant in Winyah Bay ultimately

16
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
makes their way to GCWSD drinking water intake due to the tidal influence on the Waccamaw

River.

84. The Waccamaw River contains elevated levels of PFAS as a result of Defendant’s

past and present manufacture and/or discharge of PFAS.

85. Because of their persistence and bioaccumulation, PFAS discharged into the

Waccamaw River, and its tributaries decades ago are still present in GCWSD’s water supply and

continue to impact GCWSD’s ability to provide clean drinking water to its water customers.

86. These “forever chemicals” will continue to pollute GCWSD’s water supply for

generations to come and will be present in GCWSD’s drinking water in excess of the applicable

federal standards until they are removed through very sophisticated filtration methods.

87. In addition to wastewater containing PFAS directly discharged into the Waccamaw

River, Defendant knew or should have known that PFAS cannot be removed by conventional

wastewater treatment methods, and that the Defendant’s wastewater containing PFAS passes

directly through upstream wastewater treatment systems and back into the Waccamaw River and

its tributaries, upstream of GCWSD’s drinking water intake in Georgetown County, South

Carolina.

88. In addition to discharging PFAS into the Waccamaw River and its tributaries

directly and indirectly through industrial wastewater discharges to local wastewater treatment

plants, Defendant has also engaged in the land application of sludge containing PFAS, which has

further exacerbated PFAS contamination in the Waccamaw River basin.

89. As a result of Defendant’s manufacture, use, disposal, and discharge of PFAS

and/or products and waste that contain or degrade into PFAS, dangerously elevated levels of PFAS

have been detected in the Waccamaw River and its related tributaries and watersheds. The levels

17
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
of PFAS detected far exceed the EPA’s most recent Health Advisory, Maximum Contaminant

Levels (“MCL”), and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (“MCLG”).

90. South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control (“DHEC”)

performed extensive sampling as part of its Ambient Surface Water PFAS Study. 2 This sampling

revealed significant PFAS detections downstream of Defendant’s facilities and upstream of

GCWSD’s drinking water intakes in concentrations that exceed 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS.

91. The detected levels of PFAS in GCWSD’s finished water exceed the EPA’s most

recent Health Advisory, MCL, and MCLG.

92. Because GCWSD’s water treatment plant, like most conventional water treatment

plants in the country, is incapable of removing PFAS, GCWSD’s raw and finished water both

contain levels of “forever chemicals” much higher than that which is allowed by the EPA’s 2022

Health Advisory and the new MCLs.

93. Now, through no fault of its own, GCWSD must find a way to remove these harmful

chemicals from its water and wastewater, in order to meet the standards set by the EPA, comply

with South Carolina’s Code and State Regulations, including S.C. Code Ann. Regs. § 61-68 Water

Classifications and Standards and protect public health.

94. PFAS can only be filtered through the use of costly and sophisticated treatment

technology.

95. GCWSD seeks compensatory damages for filtration equipment, piping, and

adequate permanent facilities necessary to operate the filtering systems sufficient to remove PFAS

2
DHEC’s ambient surface water data through is made public at: PFAS-Bureau of Water, SC Dept.
of Health & Environ. Control, https://perma.cc/8RTX-JNSK (last accessed December 29, 2024).
18
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
from water relied on by GCWSD for its customers, who in turn rely on GCWSD to provide clean,

safe drinking water.

96. GCWSD also seeks compensatory damages to the fullest extent allowed by South

Carolina law for the filtration equipment, piping, and adequate permanent facilities necessary to

operate state-of-the-art filtering systems sufficient to remove all PFAS from GCWSD’s

wastewater prior to release into the Waccamaw River.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE

97. GCWSD incorporates all prior paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth and

restated herein.

98. As manufacturers, users, refiners, formulators, distributors, suppliers, sellers,

marketers, shippers, disposers, and/or handlers of PFAS, products containing and/or degrading

into PFAS, products manufactured using PFAS, and/or waste containing and/or degrading into

PFAS, Defendant owed a duty to GCWSD, in its handling, control, use, and disposal of PFAS so

as not to cause harm to GCWSD.

99. Defendant owed a duty to GCWSD to exercise reasonable care in their

manufacturing procedures and waste-handling and disposal operations to prevent the

contamination of toxic PFAS chemicals into GCWSD’s raw water supply, water treatment plant,

wastewater treatment plant, and related property.

100. Defendant owed a duty to GCWSD and other downstream drinking water systems

under the Antidegradation Rules codified at Regs. § 61-68 of the South Carolina Code Regs., to

avoid causing or contributing to the discharge of toxic industrial waste that is harmful to human

health to surface waters used for drinking water.

19
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
101. Defendant assumed a duty of due care when they undertook to use PFAS chemicals

as described above because Defendant knew or should have known that the PFAS chemicals could

have contaminated GCWSD’s drinking water and its wastewater effluent.

102. Defendant also voluntarily assumed a duty of reasonable care in their manufacture,

sale, purchase, handling, and disposal of PFAS-containing products and/or PFAS-containing waste

through their internal corporate policies, permits, and adoption of industry-wide standards.

103. As described in detail above, Defendant breached their duty to exercise due care

and reasonable care owed to GCWSD.

104. Defendant knew or should have known that their PFAS is persistent in the

environment and is bioaccumulative. Defendant also knew or should have known that

conventional filtration systems are incapable of removing PFAS from environmental media, and

that users including GCWSD would be incapable of removing PFAS from their water supply and

wastewater effluent. The PFAS Manufacturers continuously supplied products containing PFAS

to the PFAS Users with knowledge that these chemicals would foreseeably contaminate surface

waters and downstream water systems—including GCWSD’s drinking water and wastewater—in

their ordinary and regular use. Defendant’s breaches of their duties to GCWSD constitute

negligent, willful, and/or reckless conduct.

105. GCWSD has a reasonable expectation that Defendant should refrain from or

otherwise avoid contaminating GCWSD’s source water, wastewater, facilities, and the

surrounding environment, as well as comply with the EPA’s standards.

106. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant’s conduct, practices,

actions, and omissions, GCWSD has been damaged and has incurred expenses and will continue

20
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
to incur expenses in the future in order to remove PFAS from both its drinking water as well as its

wastewater treatment.

107. Defendant knew or should have known of the likely impact, harm, damage, and

injury their conduct would have on GCWSD.

108. Defendant’s conduct, practices, and inactions evidence their reckless disregard for

GCWSD’s water, property, and property interests.

109. Defendant’s conduct should subject them to liability for punitive damages because

Defendant’s actions were grossly negligent, wanton, willful and careless regarding the

contamination of GCWSD’s water source and wastewater treatment facilities.

110. GCWSD is informed and believes it is entitled to judgment against Defendant,

jointly and severally, for compensatory damages as well as punitive damages.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

CONTINUING NUISANCE

111. GCWSD incorporates all prior paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth and

restated herein.

112. Defendant has created a continuing nuisance by failing to prevent the contamination

of GCWSD’s water supply and wastewater with PFAS. As a direct result, GCWSD’s drinking

water supply, water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plant, and related property are

contaminated with PFAS, thereby proximately causing GCWSD interference with its use of the

property.

113. Defendant’s manufacture and use of PFAS chemicals for decades constitutes a

nuisance that is continuous and ongoing as the PFAS chemicals are continuously contaminating

and invading GCWSD’s water supply, property, and property interests.

21
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
114. Defendant independently and collectively controlled the cause of the nuisance

plaguing GCWSD by causing and contributing to the introduction of harmful pollutants into

GCWSD’s drinking water and wastewater. In many cases, the PFAS Manufacturers controlled

the PFAS Users’ application and use of PFAS-containing products.

115. The contamination of GCWSD’s water supply, water treatment plants, wastewater

treatment plant, and related property constitutes an unreasonable interference or continuing

nuisance, which has caused GCWSD damages that are separate and distinct from those faced by

the general public.

116. GCWSD has suffered damages as a direct result of Defendant’s continuing

nuisance including but not limited to: past and future expenses associated with installing,

maintaining, and operating drinking water treatment systems and associated facilities and

equipment capable of removing PFAS; past and future expenses associated with testing and

monitoring raw and finished water for the presence of PFAS; and costs associated with remediating

GCWSD’s existing treatment facilities as necessary to remove PFAS from its water supply.

117. This nuisance has caused substantial damage and will continue to cause damages

until GCWSD receives compensatory damages for the necessary improvements of filtration

technology that will allow for the removal of PFAS from GCWSD’s water supply and wastewater

treatment.

118. Defendant has acted with a conscious indifference to the probable dangerous

consequences of their actions and the reasonably foreseeable impact such actions would have.

119. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant’s conduct, practices,

actions, and omissions, GCWSD has been damaged and has incurred expenses and will continue

to incur expenses in the future to remove PFAS from its drinking water and wastewater.

22
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
120. Defendant’s conduct, practices, and inactions evidence their reckless disregard for

GCWSD’s water, property, and property interests.

121. Defendant’s conduct subjects them to liability for punitive damages because

Defendant’s actions were grossly negligent, wanton, willful, and careless regarding the

contamination of GCWSD’s drinking water source.

122. GCWSD is informed and believes that it is entitled to judgment against Defendant,

jointly and severally, for compensatory damages as well as punitive damages pursuant to

Defendant’s continuing nuisance.

FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

PUBLIC NUISANCE

123. GCWSD incorporates all prior paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth and

restated herein.

124. GCWSD owns and occupies property used to serve its water customers, including

a water intake, water distribution system, wastewater treatment plants and a water treatment plant,

as well as offices, associated facilities, and other equipment.

125. GCWSD has a property interest in the water it draws from the Waccamaw River to

provide drinking water to its customers.

126. Defendant has created and contributed to a public nuisance by causing or

contributing to cause PFAS chemicals to contaminate the Waccamaw River, which is a public

waterway from which GCWSD collects its drinking water supply. Defendant’s contamination of

these waterways obstructs and impairs the public’s rights to collect clean and safe drinking water.

127. The continuance and ongoing contamination of the Waccamaw River at GCWSD’s

drinking water intake, water treatment plant, wastewater treatment plants and related property

23
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
constitutes a public nuisance depriving GCWSD of its ability to deliver clean and uncontaminated

water and wastewater treatment to its customers.

128. It was reasonably foreseeable, and in fact known to Defendant, that their actions

would contaminate, and have contaminated, the water at GCWSD’s drinking water intake sites.

The contamination caused, contributed to, and/or maintained by Defendant substantially and

unreasonably interferes with GCWSD’s property rights to appropriate, use, and enjoy water from

the Waccamaw River.

129. Defendant’s public nuisance has caused substantial damages and will continue to

cause damages until GCWSD receives compensatory damages for the necessary improvements of

filtration technology that will allow for the removal of PFAS from GCWSD’s drinking water

supply.

130. Damage to GCWSD’s drinking water facilities as well as GCWSD’s wastewater

treatment facility constitutes special damages.

131. Defendant committed each of the above-described acts and omissions willfully and

with malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or lack of the entire want of care which would raise

the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences in order to promote sales of their

products and/or services. GCWSD therefore demands an award of punitive damages because of

the aggravating circumstances alleged herein in order to penalize, punish, and deter Defendant’s

conduct.

132. GCWSD is informed and believes that it is entitled to a judgment against

Defendant, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages as well as for punitive damages, and

the costs and legal fees associated with this action.

24
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
TRESPASS

133. GCWSD incorporates all prior paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth and

restated herein.

134. GCWSD owns and occupies property used to serve its water customers, including

a drinking water intake, a water distribution system, wastewater treatment plants and water

treatment plant, as well as offices, associated facilities, and equipment.

135. GCWSD owns land and water rights which permit them to draw water from the

Waccamaw River to provide drinking water to its customers. GCWSD has a possessory interest in

the water it withdraws from the Waccamaw River in order to treat and sell to its customers.

136. Defendant’s intentional and voluntary acts in manufacturing, supplying, using,

and/or discharging PFAS and/or products and waste containing or degrading into PFAS, with full

knowledge that these toxins would contaminate GCWSD’s drinking water supply, caused an

invasion and damage to GCWSD’s property, as well as GCWSD’s possessory interest in its

property by Defendant’s chemicals, which has affected and is affecting GCWSD’s interest in the

exclusive possession of their property.

137. Defendant’s PFAS chemicals have trespassed into GCWSD’s drinking water

treatment facility.

138. GCWSD has at no time consented to the contamination of its water supply or the

invasion of its property and possessory interests by Defendant’s PFAS chemicals.

139. Defendant knew or should have known that their manufacture, use, purchase, sale,

supply, disposal, discharge, and/or release of PFAS and PFAS-containing products or waste could

contaminate GCWSD’s water supply, wastewater treatment and result in an invasion of GCWSD’s

possessory interest in its property.

25
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
140. Defendant acted in a wanton fashion with reckless disregard for GCWSD’s water,

wastewater, rights, and property interests.

141. Defendant’s trespass is continuous and ongoing. The contamination resulting from

Defendant’s trespass has migrated and spread and will continue to migrate and spread.

142. Defendant’s continuing trespass has impaired GCWSD’s use of its property and

has caused and will cause GCWSD to suffer substantial damages.

143. Defendant knew or should have known the danger to GCWSD created by

Defendant’s conduct, practices, actions, and inactions.

144. Defendant’s conduct, practices, actions, and inactions evidence their reckless

disregard for GCWSD’s property.

145. GCWSD is informed and believes that it is entitled to a judgment against

Defendant, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages as well as for punitive damages, and

the costs and legal fees associated with this action.

FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO WARN

146. GCWSD incorporates all prior paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth and

restated herein.

147. At various times, Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, the danger

of supplying and or using a man-made synthetic chemical that was environmentally persistent,

bioaccumulative and toxic that was otherwise impervious to all conventional methods of filtration

and pollution removal. Given the extent of the risks associated with PFAS to potentially harm

human health and pollute the environment, Defendant had a duty to warn of the harm that would

have occurred by releasing PFAS chemicals into the environment through manufacturing

wastewater and/or stormwater. This duty extended to Plaintiff because it was foreseeable, and in

26
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
fact known, by Defendant that publicly operated treatment works could not remove the pollutants

from wastewater and in turn would be released into the environment.

148. Defendant breached their duty to warn, and as a direct and proximate result of this

breach, Plaintiff has sustained damages.

149. Defendant for decades sold PFAS chemicals to textile mills and other businesses

and/or used PFAS chemicals in South Carolina without adequate warnings of the environmental

and human health dangers associated with their products, which includes danger to human health,

environmental persistence, bioaccumulation, and high mobility in water bodies. Defendant knew

that PFAS tainted wastewater or sludge could not be properly disposed of without sophisticated

pretreatment equipment and when discharged to a public sewer system, a publicly owned water

treatment facility, and/or directly into the environment, the result would be pollution of drinking

water.

150. In fact, Defendant knew that their own manufacturing wastewater containing

PFAS, and sludge built up in their treatment facilities, should not be discharged and could not be

discharged to conventional water treatment facilities because these dangerous chemicals would be

“passed through” to public waterways causing great public harm.

151. Defendant knew that their PFAS polluted wastewater and PFAS polluted sludge

had to be incinerated and not released into the environment in order to avoid the widespread PFAS

contamination. Despite this knowledge, Defendant breached their duty to warn of the dangers

associated with PFAS from the anticipated disposal of PFAS wastewater or sludge without

adequate warnings of the hazard and instructions as to how the contamination could be avoided

through the proper sophisticated filtration, incineration, collection, and transport of the pollutants

to a certified treatment facility.

27
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
152. Defendant has also failed to warn about the presence of PFAS in their products and

wastewater, representing their products as free of PFAS and or safe for use, when in fact their

products did contain PFAS and were not safe for ordinary use.

153. As a result of the Defendant’s negligent failure to warn, the drinking water has been

polluted with PFAS. The harm caused by the Defendant’s was done maliciously and with

knowledge, to a high degree of probability, and with reckless indifference to the consequences of

their actions, has harmed Plaintiff.

154. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff must build

sophisticated drinking water treatment facilities that will cost millions of dollars in order to meet

the MCLs promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. As a result of the

PFAS contamination caused by Defendant, Plaintiff will incur millions of dollars of compensatory

damages, and other damages to be proved at trial including punitive damages.

FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
(“SCUTPA”)
S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-10 et seq.

155. GCWSD incorporates all prior paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth and

restated herein.

156. Despite knowing that their PFAS is persistent in the environment and is

bioaccumulative, despite knowing that conventional filtration systems are incapable of removing

PFAS from environmental media, and despite knowing that users including GCWSD would be

incapable of removing PFAS from their water supply and wastewater effluent, Defendant unfairly

disposed of these chemicals in surface waters and upstream water systems—including GCWSD’s

drinking water and wastewater—in their ordinary and regular use without informing GCWSD of

any known or potential hazards.

28
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
157. Defendant’s intentional and voluntary acts in manufacturing, supplying, using,

and/or discharging PFAS and/or products and waste containing or degrading into PFAS, with full

knowledge that these toxins would contaminate GCWSD’s drinking water supply, constitutes an

unfair and deceptive act that offends public policy, is substantially injurious to GCWSD and its

customers, and would plausibly mislead any reasonable person.

158. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, GCWSD must build

sophisticated drinking water treatment facilities that will cost millions of dollars in order to meet

the MCLs promulgated by the EPA. As a result of the PFAS contamination caused by Defendant,

GCWSD will incur millions of dollars of compensatory damages, and other damages to be proved

at trial including punitive damages.

159. Defendant’s conduct, actions, and/or omissions, individually and/or as agents one

for the other, by and through their agents, servants, and/or employees, as set out in detail above,

violate the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-140.

160. Defendant’s conduct, actions, and/or omissions, as set out in detail above, have

been and continue to be repeated in South Carolina.

161. Defendant’s conduct, actions, and/or omissions, as set forth above, constitute unfair

and/or deceptive trade practices and are capable of repetition, and in fact have been repeated by

Defendant on a regular basis.

162. Defendant’s conduct was willful, and Defendant knew or should have known that

its conduct violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

163. As a result of Defendant’s actions, GCWSD is entitled to actual damages, treble

damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

29
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, GCWSD respectfully requests this Court grant the following relief:

a) Award GCWSD damages in an amount to be determined by a jury sufficient to

compensate GCWSD for past and future damages;

b) Award treble damages pursuant to the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act;

c) Award punitive damages;

d) Award prejudgment interests for any costs or damages incurred by GCWSD;

e) Award attorney fees and costs and expenses incurred in connection with the

litigation of this matter; and

f) Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper, and

equitable.

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of January 2025.

s/Amy L.B. Hill____________________

Amy L.B. Hill, SC Bar No.: 68541
William C. Lewis, SC Bar No.: 101287
Richardson Thomas, LLC
1513 Hampton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
T: 803-281-8150
F: 803-632-8263
amy@richardsonthomas.com
will@richardsonthomas.com

and

Jeffrey E. Friedman
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Jeffrey E. (Jay) Friedman, Jr.
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Matthew D. Conn
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Madison M. Gitschier
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Friedman, Dazzio & Zulanas, P.C.

30
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Jan 06 9:55 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP2200015
3800 Corporate Woods Drive
Birmingham, AL 35242
T: 205-278-7057
F: 205-278-7001
jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
jayfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
mconn@friedman-lawyers.com
mgitschier@friedman-lawyers.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

31