Case Overview

Type: Toxic Exposure — Class Action Roundup

Verticals: Consumer Products, Occupational Exposure

Cases Covered: 2

Last Updated: May 2026

Toxic Exposure Lawsuits to Watch: Fiberglass in Mattresses and PFAS in Firefighter Gear

Two new class action lawsuits are raising serious concerns about toxic chemical exposure in everyday environments — one targeting a popular mattress brand, another focusing on the protective gear worn by the people who run toward danger. Here's what both cases allege and who may be affected.

1. Nectar Mattress — Fiberglass Contamination

Status: Active class action

Estimated Payout: Not yet determined

Who Qualifies: Consumers who purchased a Nectar brand mattress

According to recent class action reporting, a new lawsuit filed against Resident Home — the company behind the Nectar mattress brand — alleges that its mattresses contain toxic fiberglass that can leak into consumers' homes through ordinary, everyday use.

The complaint alleges that fiberglass particles escape from the mattress interior, particularly when mattress covers are removed for washing — something a reasonable consumer would expect to do. Once released, the lawsuit states, these microscopic glass fibers can spread throughout a home, embedding in carpets, upholstery, clothing, and bedding, and potentially becoming airborne.

The plaintiff claims that inhaling or contacting fiberglass particles can cause skin irritation, eye irritation, and respiratory issues, and that consumers were not adequately warned about this risk at the time of purchase. According to the complaint, had buyers been informed that the mattress used fiberglass as a fire barrier — and that this material could escape — many would not have purchased the product, or would have paid significantly less for it.

Nectar is a widely recognized direct-to-consumer mattress brand sold online and in retail locations. The lawsuit seeks to represent all U.S. consumers who purchased an affected Nectar mattress.

How to follow this case: No settlement or claims process has been established. Consumers interested in this litigation may wish to monitor updates through legal news sources.

2. Firefighter Turnout Gear — PFAS Contamination

Status: Active class action

Estimated Payout: Not yet determined

Who Qualifies: Firefighters and potentially municipalities exposed to PFAS-containing gear

A separate class action lawsuit, first reported in April 2026, alleges that several major manufacturers — including 3M Company and DuPont de Nemours — produced firefighter turnout gear containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS or "forever chemicals." The suit was brought on behalf of a California county and alleges the contaminated gear exposed firefighters to serious health risks within their own fire stations.

According to the complaint, PFAS compounds used in the protective outer layers of turnout gear did not stay contained to the gear itself. The lawsuit alleges these chemicals migrated into fire station environments — contaminating surfaces, floors, and the air that firefighters breathe during training and rest — resulting in chronic, low-level exposure over the course of careers.

PFAS are a class of synthetic chemicals that do not break down in the environment or the human body, which is how they earned the "forever chemicals" designation. According to the EPA and a growing body of research, PFAS exposure has been linked to certain cancers, thyroid disease, immune system effects, and developmental issues, though the scientific and legal communities continue to examine the precise nature of these associations.

The defendants named in the lawsuit — which include some of the largest chemical manufacturers in the world — have faced PFAS-related litigation across multiple industries in recent years, including firefighting foam (AFFF) cases that have resulted in multi-billion dollar settlements.

This latest lawsuit reflects a broader legal push to hold gear manufacturers accountable not just for what firefighting equipment is designed to do, but for what it may inadvertently do to the people wearing it.

How to follow this case: No settlement or claims process has been announced. Firefighters or municipalities who believe they may have been affected may wish to consult with a qualified attorney.

Key Takeaways

• Fiberglass in mattresses is an emerging litigation area. The Nectar case is among a growing number of complaints targeting mattress brands that allegedly use fiberglass as a fire-retardant material without clearly disclosing the risks to consumers.
• PFAS exposure litigation is expanding beyond water contamination. While much PFAS litigation has focused on contaminated drinking water and firefighting foam, lawsuits are increasingly targeting the gear and products that bring workers into repeated contact with these chemicals.
• Neither case has an active claims process yet. Both lawsuits are in early stages. No settlement fund, claims portal, or deadline has been established for either matter.
• Documentation may matter later. Consumers who purchased Nectar mattresses and firefighters with documented turnout gear exposure may find it useful to preserve purchase records, employment documentation, or any communications about the products in question — should a claims process eventually open.

Have you experienced issues with a Nectar mattress or PFAS exposure through firefighting equipment? Share your experience in the comments below.

InjuryClaims.com reports on class action lawsuits and legal developments. Nothing in this article constitutes legal or medical advice. Only a qualified attorney can evaluate whether you may have a viable claim.