On August 11, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) motion to dismiss the Cookware Sustainability Alliance’s (CSA) suit for failure to state a claim. CSA v. Kessler (No. 0:25-cv-00041). As reported in our January 14, 2025, blog item, CSA filed suit in January 2025, claiming that Minnesota’s January 1, 2025, ban on the sale of cookware containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, the First Amendment, and the Supremacy Clause. After MPCA moved to dismiss the complaint, CSA voluntarily dismissed its causes of action under the First Amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

CSA claims that Minnesota’s prohibition on the sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS discriminates against out-of-state interest because it applies only to out-of-state manufacturers since Nordic Ware, the only company in Minnesota manufacturing cookware containing intentionally added PFAS, ceased manufacturing such cookware. The court determined that the prohibition “applies equally to every cookware manufacturer, regardless of geography.” According to the court, the Minnesota legislature did not give any structural “competitive advantage” to in-state industry when it passed the statute. The court states that “[b]ecause the Statute does not discriminate — facially, in purpose, or in effect — against out-of-state interests, Count 1 fails to state a dormant Commerce Clause claim.”

According to the court, “a state law still violates the dormant Commerce Clause if the plaintiff proves that the law substantially burdens interstate commerce, and those burdens clearly outweigh its benefits.” Although a Pike balancing analysis is typically required under this version of a dormant Commerce Clause clam, the court notes that it need not proceed to the balancing test if the plaintiff fails to allege plausibly a substantial burden on interstate commerce. The court states that CSA’s “failure to demonstrate a substantial burden on interstate commerce is enough on its own to doom CSA’s claim, without ever needing to assess the veracity of CSA’s allegations about the dangers of PFAS.” If the court did reach the Pike balancing test, the court would “take the legislature at its word that it is acting on behalf of legitimate state interests” and balance it against the burden faced by Minnesota consumers who will no longer have access to nonstick cookware that contains PFAS. The court notes that having failed to state a claim of overt discrimination under the dormant Commerce Clause, the undue burden on interstate commerce “must be stronger still” and “CSA fails to clear that high hurdle.”

The court granted MPCA’s motion to dismiss, dismissing CSA’s dormant Commerce Clause claims in the Complaint with prejudice and the voluntarily dismissed claims without prejudice.