3M Files Countersuit Against Mr. Tint

February 21st, 2024 by Casey Flores

3M Company has responded to the court case involving South Carolina-based Mr. Tint, owned by Tom Nocilo, vs. the 3M Company.

The case, filed by Mr. Tint against the 3M Company, alleges 3M defamed Mr. Tint, costing the company business after 3M told a school that Mr. Tint did not install 3M security film at their facility.

In latest new court  filing, 3M denies the allegations that it conspired with an  EPD sales representative to hurt Mr. Tint’s reputation. 3M has admitted to testing the film samples sent from the school district and said its letter stating the film was not 3M product “speaks for itself.”

As a result, 3M argues Mr. Tint isn’t entitled to “any relief whatsoever” and instead countersued.

“Mr. Tint’s misconduct has also generated substantial confusion and concern among 3M’s customers and in the window film industry, harming 3M’s reputation and violating both state and federal laws,” the countersuit claims, alleging, “The evidence shows that Mr. Tint conducted itself unethically by claiming to install 3M’s Ultra S800 Film while installing another film altogether.”

3M’s lawyers say the company’s employees inspected the films used in two school security installations and found that one was constructed with a single layer and two other samples had two layers while 3M Ultra S800 film “is made from 14 pro-extruded layers using a design that 3M invented and patented” and that the film used could not therefore be 3M security film. They report also inspecting the adhesive, which they claim differs from 3M’s adhesive’s chemical makeup.

As a result, 3M is countersuing Mr. Tint, alleging that it’s Mr. Tint who has damaged 3M’s reputation in excess of $75,000 and is asking for damages in an amount to be determined at trial as well as legal and attorney fees.

This is an ongoing story. WINDOW FILM magazine will bring updates as they’re made available.

This article is from Focus on Film, the weekly e-newsletter that covers the latest news regarding window film and related products, including paint protection film. Click HERE to sign up—there is no charge. Interested in a deeper dive? Free subscriptions to Window Film magazine in print or digital format are available. Subscribe at no charge HERE.

Leave a comment »

  1. I’m upset over this. I actually turn away school jobs, because I know I’m not the best at security Film, nor trained to do it perfectly. Our Children deserve to be Safe.
    For a Professional Installer to put 1ply/2ply on a security job on a school, knowing it’s not security film, should be sent to Jail! A professional installer knows the difference between security Film, and 1/2ply film just by feeling it.
    If you need a check that bad, that you put other people’s children in jeopardy, you in the wrong industry!

  2. To put your mind at ease Mitchell…. A one ply film is usually a 7 mil product. A 2 ply film can be from 8 mil to 25 mil thick. I other words a 2ply film can be equal or stronger then the 3M S800. They do not say WHAT the company installed just that it was not S800. 3M is great at marketing therefore a 14 pro extruded layers sure sound better then a 2 ply film when in truth it all comes down to test strength and application needing to be met. Products are changed everyday based off availability but YES if a client was sold one product and not informed of the change then they should be held responsible but we can’t assume the product used was inferior.

  3. For the record, Mr. Tint installed a film by American Standard. Not only is it much less expensive than the 3M Ultra S800, it is far less superior. I agree with Mitchell, how dare anyone put our children at risk!

Leave Comment