PFAS forever chemicals lawsuit: water contamination litigation

Understanding PFAS forever chemicals and the growing litigation landscape

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of more than 12,000 synthetic chemicals that have been manufactured and used in industrial and consumer applications since the late 1940s. Often referred to as “forever chemicals” because of their extraordinary resistance to environmental degradation, PFAS persist in water, soil, and biological systems for decades or longer. These chemicals have been found in the drinking water supplies of communities across the United States, in the blood of virtually every American tested, and in ecosystems worldwide.

The PFAS litigation landscape is one of the most complex and expansive areas of environmental and toxic tort law. Lawsuits have been filed by municipal water systems seeking contamination cleanup costs, by individuals alleging personal injuries from PFAS exposure, and by state attorneys general seeking environmental remediation and damages from manufacturers. For personal injury attorneys, PFAS litigation offers significant opportunities across multiple case types, from individual injury claims to large-scale municipal actions.

PFAS litigation has been compared to asbestos in scale and scope — with total cleanup and health-related costs projected to reach tens of billions of dollars and a plaintiff population that spans every state in the country.

What are PFAS? The chemistry behind forever chemicals

Chemical structure and properties

PFAS are characterized by their carbon-fluorine bonds, which are among the strongest chemical bonds in organic chemistry. This bond strength is what makes PFAS so resistant to heat, water, oil, and biological degradation. The carbon-fluorine backbone gives these chemicals unique properties that made them commercially valuable: they repel both water and oil, resist heat, reduce friction, and maintain stability under extreme conditions.

The two most extensively studied PFAS compounds are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). PFOA was used extensively by DuPont in the manufacture of Teflon, while PFOS was the key ingredient in 3M's Scotchgard products and was a critical component of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used for firefighting. While manufacturers have phased out some long-chain PFAS, replacement compounds (often shorter-chain PFAS or structurally similar chemicals like GenX) have raised their own environmental and health concerns.

Environmental persistence: why they are called forever chemicals

PFAS are called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down through natural environmental processes. Unlike most organic pollutants, which are eventually degraded by sunlight, microorganisms, or chemical reactions, PFAS persist essentially indefinitely in the environment. They migrate through soil into groundwater, accumulate in surface water bodies, and bioaccumulate in fish, wildlife, and human tissues. The half-life of PFOS in the human body is estimated at approximately 5.4 years, meaning that even after exposure stops, the chemicals remain in the body for years.

Ubiquitous presence in consumer products

Beyond industrial applications, PFAS have been used in a staggering array of consumer products, including nonstick cookware (Teflon), stain-resistant fabrics and carpets (Scotchgard, Gore-Tex), water-resistant clothing, food packaging (microwave popcorn bags, fast food wrappers, pizza boxes), personal care products (cosmetics, dental floss), and numerous other everyday items. This ubiquitous presence means that virtually every American has some level of PFAS in their blood, though individuals living near contamination sources have significantly higher exposure levels.

Sources of PFAS contamination: military bases, industrial sites, and airports

Military installations and AFFF firefighting foam

Military bases are among the most significant sources of PFAS contamination in the United States. The Department of Defense has been the largest consumer of AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam), a PFAS-containing firefighting foam used to extinguish jet fuel fires and petroleum-based fires during training exercises and emergency responses. Decades of AFFF use during firefighter training, equipment testing, and emergency response at hundreds of military installations have resulted in widespread PFAS contamination of groundwater and drinking water sources near these bases.

The Department of Defense has identified hundreds of installations with known or suspected PFAS contamination. Communities surrounding these bases have been exposed to PFAS-contaminated drinking water, often for decades before the contamination was identified. This litigation area overlaps with AFFF firefighting foam cases and involves many of the same chemicals and manufacturers.

Industrial manufacturing facilities

Manufacturing facilities that produced or used PFAS chemicals have contaminated surrounding communities through air emissions, wastewater discharge, and disposal of PFAS-containing waste. The most well-known example is DuPont's Washington Works facility in Parkersburg, West Virginia, which discharged PFOA into the Ohio River for decades, contaminating the drinking water of approximately 70,000 people in the Mid-Ohio Valley. Similar contamination has been documented near 3M's manufacturing facilities in Minnesota, Chemours facilities in North Carolina, and numerous other industrial sites across the country.

Commercial airports and fire training areas

Commercial airports have used AFFF for firefighter training and emergency response, creating contamination plumes similar to those at military bases. The FAA previously required airports to use AFFF that met specific performance standards, which effectively mandated the use of PFAS-containing foams. This regulatory requirement has complicated liability analysis, as airports may argue that their use of AFFF was compelled by federal regulation.

Health effects of PFAS exposure: cancer, thyroid disease, and beyond

Cancer associations

Epidemiological studies have linked PFAS exposure to several types of cancer. The strongest associations have been found for kidney cancer and testicular cancer, based on studies of communities with elevated PFAS exposure and occupational cohorts at PFAS manufacturing facilities. The C8 Science Panel, established as part of the DuPont settlement to study the health effects of PFOA in the Mid-Ohio Valley, concluded that there was a probable link between PFOA exposure and both kidney cancer and testicular cancer.

Thyroid disease

PFAS exposure has been consistently linked to thyroid disease, including hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and thyroid hormone disruption. The thyroid gland is particularly susceptible to PFAS interference because PFAS chemicals can compete with thyroid hormones for binding sites on transport proteins. The C8 Science Panel found a probable link between PFOA exposure and thyroid disease, and subsequent studies have reinforced this association across multiple populations.

Immune system dysfunction

Research has demonstrated that PFAS exposure can suppress immune function, reducing the body's ability to fight infections and respond to vaccines. Studies have shown that children with higher PFAS levels have lower antibody responses to routine childhood vaccinations. This immunotoxicity has been recognized by the National Toxicology Program, which concluded that PFOS and PFOA are “presumed to be an immune hazard to humans.”

Reproductive and developmental effects

PFAS exposure has been associated with a range of reproductive and developmental effects, including reduced fertility, pregnancy-induced hypertension (preeclampsia), low birth weight, developmental delays in children, and endocrine disruption. These effects are particularly concerning because PFAS can cross the placental barrier and are found in breast milk.

The 3M PFAS settlement: a landmark $10.3 billion resolution

Background and litigation history

3M, the manufacturer of PFOS and related PFAS compounds used in Scotchgard, AFFF, and numerous industrial applications, has been a primary defendant in PFAS litigation. In June 2023, 3M reached a historic settlement agreement to resolve claims brought by municipal water systems alleging PFAS contamination of public drinking water supplies. The settlement, valued at approximately $10.3 billion over 13 years, is one of the largest environmental settlements in U.S. history.

Settlement structure and distribution

The 3M settlement established a framework for distributing funds to public water systems based on their levels of PFAS contamination and the costs of treatment and remediation. The settlement covers water systems nationwide and provides funding for PFAS testing, treatment system installation, and ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment infrastructure.

Impact on individual injury claims

The 3M municipal water system settlement addressed contamination cleanup and water treatment costs but did not resolve individual personal injury claims. People who developed health conditions linked to PFAS exposure may still pursue individual injury claims against 3M and other PFAS manufacturers. The settlement's acknowledgment of widespread contamination may actually support individual claims by establishing that contamination occurred.

DuPont and Chemours litigation: the PFOA legacy

The Parkersburg, West Virginia, story

The DuPont PFOA litigation began with the contamination of drinking water in the Mid-Ohio Valley near DuPont's Washington Works facility in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Attorney Robert Bilott's investigation revealed that DuPont had been dumping PFOA (used in Teflon manufacturing) into the Ohio River and unlined waste pits for decades, contaminating the drinking water of approximately 70,000 people. The resulting litigation, later depicted in the film Dark Waters, set the stage for the broader PFAS litigation movement.

The C8 Science Panel and probable link findings

The landmark Leach v. DuPont settlement established the C8 Science Panel, an independent panel of epidemiologists tasked with studying the health effects of PFOA exposure in the Mid-Ohio Valley community. After years of research and analysis of data from approximately 69,000 community members, the Science Panel concluded that there was a probable link between PFOA exposure and six health conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

DuPont and Chemours settlement history

Following the C8 Science Panel's findings, approximately 3,500 individual personal injury claims were filed against DuPont. Initial bellwether trials resulted in substantial plaintiff verdicts, including a $1.6 million verdict in the first trial and a $5.6 million verdict in the second. DuPont ultimately settled the remaining cases for approximately $671 million. DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva also reached a $1.19 billion settlement to resolve water system claims.

Individual personal injury claims in PFAS litigation

Who can file a personal injury PFAS claim

Individuals who lived, worked, or were stationed near PFAS contamination sources and developed health conditions linked to PFAS exposure may be eligible to file personal injury claims. Qualifying health conditions typically include:

• Kidney cancer: One of the conditions with the strongest epidemiological link to PFAS exposure.
• Testicular cancer: Also strongly linked by the C8 Science Panel findings.
• Thyroid cancer and thyroid disease: Supported by multiple studies showing PFAS-related thyroid disruption.
• Liver cancer and liver disease: Linked to PFAS accumulation in hepatic tissues.
• Bladder cancer: Emerging evidence supports an association with PFAS exposure.
• Ulcerative colitis: Identified as a probable link by the C8 Science Panel.
• Pregnancy complications: Including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension.
• Immune dysfunction: Particularly in children with vaccine response impairment.

The EPA regulatory framework: setting PFAS drinking water standards

Historical regulatory inaction

For decades, PFAS chemicals were largely unregulated in the United States. Despite growing evidence of environmental contamination and health effects, the EPA did not establish enforceable drinking water standards for any PFAS compounds until recent years. In 2016, the EPA issued a non-enforceable health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for combined PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, but this advisory level was widely criticized as insufficiently protective.

2024 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

In April 2024, the EPA finalized the first-ever National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFAS, establishing enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for six PFAS compounds. The final rule set MCLs of 4 ppt for PFOA and 4 ppt for PFOS individually, and established a hazard index approach for mixtures of four additional PFAS (PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX). These standards are among the most stringent chemical regulations the EPA has ever promulgated.

PFAS litigation timeline: from early discovery to national reckoning

• 1940s-1960s: PFAS chemicals developed and manufactured by 3M, DuPont, and other companies for industrial and consumer applications.
• 1960s-2000s: Internal company studies reveal environmental persistence and potential health concerns, but information is not widely shared with regulators or the public.
• 1998-2001: Robert Bilott files lawsuit against DuPont on behalf of West Virginia farmer Wilbur Tennant, triggering investigation of PFOA contamination.
• 2000-2002: 3M voluntarily phases out PFOS production; EPA negotiates consent agreement with 3M.
• 2004-2005: DuPont settles with EPA for $16.5 million for concealing PFOA health data.
• 2005-2012: C8 Science Panel conducts health studies; identifies six probable link conditions.
• 2013-2017: DuPont bellwether trials result in plaintiff verdicts; DuPont settles ~3,500 PI cases for $671 million.
• 2018: MDL 2873 established in District of South Carolina for AFFF-related PFAS claims.
• 2023: 3M announces $10.3 billion settlement for municipal water system claims.
• 2024: EPA finalizes first-ever enforceable PFAS drinking water standards (4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS).
• 2025-2026: Individual personal injury claims continue to grow; state-level litigation expands.

PFAS and military veterans: special considerations

Military veterans who were stationed at bases with PFAS contamination face unique considerations. In addition to pursuing civil tort claims against PFAS manufacturers, veterans may be eligible for VA benefits for health conditions linked to PFAS exposure. The Feres doctrine does not prevent claims against the private manufacturers of PFAS chemicals. Attorneys representing veterans should evaluate both civil litigation and VA benefits pathways to maximize their clients' recoveries.

The connection between PFAS and military service also links to the AFFF firefighting foam litigation and Camp Lejeune water contamination claims, creating opportunities for comprehensive representation of veterans with multiple exposure pathways.

Cross-referencing related practice areas

PFAS contamination litigation is a natural complement to other environmental and toxic tort practice areas. Firms active in this area may also benefit from diversifying into mass tort practice areas like hernia mesh, hair relaxer cancer, or Ozempic gastroparesis that provide revenue stability and a broader client base.