Lawsuit Information Center
Our lawyers are handling AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits around the country.
This page provides the most recent news and updates on the AFFF firefighting foam class action lawsuit and our prediction of the settlement amounts that plaintiffs with AFFF cancer lawsuits can expect to receive. You will not get more updated news on the AFFF litigation anywhere else.
Our AFFF firefighting foam lawyers believe the defendants will settle most of these lawsuits this year (2025) before a single trial. Why? They will follow the same pattern as the water contamination lawsuits they settled for billions of dollars. In those cases, we saw the defendants’ apparent preference for settlement over the uncertainties of a trial. This makes sense; the AFFF lawsuits are strong cases.
This suggests they are likely to follow a similar path in the firefighting foam lawsuits to avoid the potential of incredibly high jury payouts. As we discuss below, we are moving towards trials in individual firefighting foam cases, and our attorneys think that pressure will lead to an AFFF settlement in early 2025. This page will also provide our most recent estimates on the potential settlement payouts claimants could see in AFFF cases.
Every claim has potential statute of limitations concerns and a global settlement may sneak up on us before we know it. So call our AFFF firefighting foam lawyers today to get your claim moving toward settlement. Call 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.
Table of Contents
Six Diseases
Our law firm is taking new AFFF firefighting foam cases in all 50 states. Our lawyers are focused on six types of claims:
- 1. Ulcerative colitis
- 2. Liver cancer
- 3. Kidney cancer
- 4. Testicular cancer
- 5. Thyroid disease/hypothyroidism
- 6. Thyroid cancer
🚨 AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit at a Glance in May 2025
📅 Key Milestones
- June 20, 2025: Science Day on liver and thyroid cancer causation in Charleston, SC.
- July 11, 2025: Plaintiffs’ expert reports due (liver/thyroid cancer).
- August 22, 2025: Defendants’ expert reports due.
- October 20, 2025: First bellwether trial scheduled (Tier 2 Group A cases).
🔍 Current Status
- MDL-2873 now includes 9,342 active cases as of May 2025.
- Settlement rumors are intensifying, driving a surge in filings.
- New lawsuits focus heavily on occupational exposure, especially among firefighters and military personnel.
- Push for consolidation of bellwether trials—key motion pending for five Pennsylvania plaintiffs with kidney/testicular cancer.
- First bellwether trial will focus exclusively on kidney cancer claims,
- Tentative trial date set for October 20, 2025
- Final decision pending on whether the trial will proceed with one or multiple plaintiffs.
📈 Disease Focus
These are the six main conditions being prioritized due to the strongest causation evidence:
- Ulcerative Colitis
- Liver Cancer
- Kidney Cancer
- Testicular Cancer
- Thyroid Disease (including hypothyroidism)
- Thyroid Cancer
💰 Estimated Settlement Ranges
- Tier 1 Cases: $300,000 – $600,000 (e.g., long-term occupational exposure + serious cancers)
- Tier 2 Cases: $150,000 – $280,000
- Tier 3 Cases: Less than $75,000
⚖️ Legal Insights
- Bellwether trials will be pivotal—used to test legal theories and influence settlement posture.
- Strong focus on causation: Science Days and expert battles will shape the admissibility of key testimony (Daubert motions).
- Consolidated trials may give plaintiffs strategic advantages by amplifying shared exposure narratives.
- Discovery and pre-trial phases are intensifying, especially in ulcerative colitis and cancer subcategories.
⏱️ Urgency to File
- Statutes of limitations and anticipated global settlement could cut off new claims soon.
- Many law firms are urging potential claimants to file now before a cutoff is implemented.
📚 Supporting Science
- National Cancer Institute and Journal of the National Cancer Institute have tied PFAS to kidney and testicular cancers.
- New studies highlight dermal and neuronal effects of PFAS exposure.
🔗 Related Defendant Activity
- DuPont, 3M, Chemours, and others are primary targets.
- Corporate misconduct evidence, including alleged cover-ups dating to the 1960s, may boost punitive damage exposure.
📞 Legal Support
Call 800-553-8082 or request a free consultation online to file or evaluate your case.
Latest AFFF Class Action Lawsuit Update (2025)
Which Trial Should Go First?
May 13, 2025
As we talked about last week, the judge is weighing whether to proceed with a single-plaintiff bellwether trial this October focused on kidney cancer claims. If it is a single plaintiff, we would prefer multiple plaintiffs, victms’ attorneys have submitted their recommended order of the three eligible Group A cases—Donnelly, Speers, and Voelker—emphasizing the need to select a case with minimal outside variables, in line with the court’s direction to avoid “background noise” and keep the jury focused on general and specific causation.
Of the three, Donnelly said to be the cleanest trial candidate, with only mild obesity and no serious alternative risk factors. Speers also presents a strong case, with exposure through a contaminated water source and a rare gene variant not tied to kidney cancer in medical literature. Voelker, however, presents more complications: higher obesity, hypertension, a questionable gene mutation, and unrelated personal issues that plaintiffs believe could distract the jury. For those reasons, plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that Donnelly or Speers would better serve the judge’s stated intention of testing causation without unnecessary confusion.
Liver Cancer Trial First
May 13, 2025
On May 9, 2025, Judge Richard Gergel ruled that the first bellwether personal injury trial in the AFFF MDL No. 2873 will focus exclusively on kidney cancer claims, excluding testicular cancer to reduce the risk of jury confusion. The trial, set for October 20, 2025, may include up to three plaintiffs, though the court has not yet decided whether to consolidate the kidney cancer cases or proceed with a single plaintiff. Plaintiffs proposed consolidating five cases involving both kidney and testicular cancers, while defendants pushed for a single case, specifically the Voelker kidney cancer case. The court has asked plaintiffs to rank their top three choices if only one case is selected for trial.
The AFFF MDL now includes nearly 10,000 personal injury lawsuits, with early trials centering on residents of Horsham and Warminster, Pennsylvania—towns near military bases with documented PFAS-contaminated drinking water. Defendants include major chemical and manufacturing companies such as 3M, DuPont, BASF/Ciba, and Arkema.
While prior multi-billion-dollar settlements resolved claims by water utilities, personal injury cases demand a higher level of individualized scientific and medical evidence. Judge Gergel will revisit the consolidation issue after ruling on Daubert and summary judgment motions later this summer. Additionally, a Science Day is scheduled for June 20 to explore links between PFAS exposure and other cancers, laying the groundwork for future bellwether trials.
Will the First AFFF Trial Have Five Plaintiffs?
May 8, 2025
Plaintiffs representing five personal injury victims have moved to consolidate their claims into a single bellwether trial. These individuals allege they developed kidney or testicular cancer after decades of exposure to PFAS-contaminated drinking water near the former Willow Grove military installations in Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs are saying, and it is true, these five cases all boil down to the same core story. They were all exposed to the same AFFF firefighting foam made by the same companies, coming from the same military sites, and contaminating the same local water systems in Pennsylvania. The legal claims are all under Pennsylvania law, so there is no mess of conflicting state laws to sort through. On top of that, they are using the same experts and dealing with two specific cancers (kidney and testicular) which follow similar medical patterns. Bottom line, there is so much overlap that it makes sense to try them together.
As an alternative, the plaintiffs propose grouping the cases by injury type—three kidney cancer cases for one bellwether trial and two testicular cancer cases for another. They contend that consolidating these claims would avoid duplicative trials, reduce costs, and provide the court and parties with consistent jury responses to core liability and causation questions. They cite previous MDL and product liability cases where courts approved similar consolidations, and they argue that any risk of jury confusion can be managed with clear instructions, special verdict forms, and tailored trial procedures.
Of course, there are tactical reasons at play. Lawyers represent clients, not judicial efficiency. When a jury hears the same story over and over from different people—same chemicals, same water, same cancer—it reinforces the narrative. It makes the case feel bigger, more credible, and less like an isolated incident. It also makes it harder for the defense to paint any plaintiff as an outlier or a fluke.
Jurors are naturally pattern-seekers. When they see multiple plaintiffs from the same community, all exposed to the same toxins and developing similar diseases, it builds a collective sense of injustice. That shared experience can amplify the emotional impact and strengthen the sense of corporate accountability.
In contrast, a single plaintiff case runs the risk of being picked apart. The defense can zero in on that one person’s medical history, personal choices, or alternative risk factors and suggest their case is just too unique to prove. But when multiple people have slightly different backgrounds but the same overall exposure story, it is harder for the defense to isolate or discredit them. The jury starts to focus more on the common thread, PFAS in the water, rather than the noise in individual medical records. It shifts the attention where plaintiffs want it: on the defendants’ conduct.
Ultimately, it does not matter whether consolidation helps or hurts one side at trial. What matters to the judge is whether the cases share enough common facts, legal issues, and evidentiary overlap to justify a joint proceeding under Rule 42. The court’s focus is on efficiency, judicial economy, and fairness, not on which party gains a tactical advantage. In this instance, the plaintiffs’ cases involve the same exposure source, the same defendants, the same legal claims under Pennsylvania law, and the same expert witnesses. The medical issues also fall into just two cancer types, making the trial manageable for a jury.
These factors all weigh in favor of consolidation. Trying the cases together avoids redundant testimony, spares witnesses from appearing multiple times, and saves the court and parties significant time and resources. When the evidence is essentially the same across the board, forcing five separate juries to hear the same story five times makes little sense. That is the truth. Consolidation streamlines the process without compromising fairness, and that’s precisely what Rule 42 is designed to promote.
We will see what the judge decides.
Filing Lawsuits Ahead of an AFFF Settlement
May 1, 2025
In the last month, 414 lawsuits were added to the AFFF firefighting foam litigation, bringing the total number of pending cases to 9,342.
A big part of that recent bump seems to be law firms trying to get cases on file quickly, as settlement rumors continue to circulate behind the scenes. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are clearly watching the clock and trying to make sure their clients are positioned if talks gain traction.
Ulcerative Colitis Bellwether Plaintiffs Added
April 26, 2025
The MDL judge issued Case Management Order 26H to update the schedule for the Group B personal injury bellwether cases involving ulcerative colitis claims.
Three new plaintiffs alleging ulcerative colitis were added to the discovery pool, and Tier 1 discovery for these plaintiffs will run from April 7, 2025, to August 11, 2025. By July 21, 2025, the parties must propose a process for selecting which of these new plaintiffs should move into Tier 2, with the expectation that at least one will be chosen, although the judge can decide to move more than one forward.
For all Group B plaintiffs already in Tier 2, discovery started back in July 2024 and is still scheduled to close by September 12, 2025, unless extended. The parties will update the mdl judge at an August 8, 2025, status conference about how discovery is progressing and whether additional time will be needed. After discovery concludes, the parties will proceed to expert discovery, based on a schedule they are still finalizing.
This order underscores that ulcerative colitis cases are picking up momentum and are being positioned for possible bellwether trials and potential settlement leverage. By setting a clear structure, the MDL judge is saying that these cases need to be trial ready soon, likely by late 2025 or early 2026. The judge’s direction to select at least one new ulcerative colitis plaintiff for Tier 2, along with early preparations for expert discovery, arguably suggests an intent to keep the pressure on both sides and move the cases closer toward resolution, whether through trial or settlement.
Are We Getting Closer to an AFFF Settlement?
April 17, 2025
If the settlement door closes at some point soon, there will be little to no advance notice. There will be a moment when lawyers put their pencils down and shut down taking new claims. If you are considering making a move and filing a claim, you should do so immediately. Some lawyers have already stopped taking new claims in anticipation of settlement.
So we are now in what feels like the final lap of the AFFF/PFAS litigation marathon. Everyone is trying to move at breakneck speed to verify which cases have proof and which do not. A close examination of discovery and product identification is ongoing to determine who belongs in a settlement.
Science Day Scheduled in AFFF Litigation – Focused on Cancer Causation
April 10, 2025
The judge presiding over the AFFF MDL has scheduled a Science Day for June 20, 2025, to follow the regular MDL status conference in Charleston, South Carolina. This session will center on the two cancer types most frequently cited by plaintiffs in the litigation: liver and thyroid cancer.
Each side—plaintiffs and defendants—will be allowed to present four expert witnesses (two per cancer type) to explain the science directly to the Court. While the official line is that this is not a forum for argument, let’s be real: lawyers are lawyers. Even within the boundaries set by the court, this is a critical opportunity for each side to shape the judge’s understanding of the science and the stakes. Counsel will not be allowed to speak or question the experts directly, but make no mistake—every word and slide has strategic intent.
Presentations will be off the record and cannot be cited later in litigation, but the impact could be profound. The judge’s understanding of causation—what science does or does not say about PFAS and cancer—will influence how future expert testimony is handled and may shape the trajectory of key rulings.
MDL Case Count Update
April 1, 2025
The AFFF firefighting foam MDL added 498 new cases in March, matching February’s surge and bringing the total to 8,928 pending lawsuits. The steady growth continues as deadlines approach in the bellwether discovery schedule. The court is currently focused on expert disclosures for thyroid and liver cancer claims, with Science Day for those two injuries set for June 20.
More AFFF Lawsuit Updates Back to the Beginning of the Litigation 👈
Judge Sets New MDL Deadlines
March 28, 2025
The judge has set key deadlines for expert reports for plaintiffs with liver cancer or thyroid cancer, with plaintiffs’ experts due by July 11, 2025, and defendants’ experts due by August 22, 2025. There will also be a Science Day on June 20, 2025, specifically to discuss the science behind these two cancers.
If your case involves kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, or thyroid disease, your schedule remains on track under the existing pretrial orders (CMO 26F & 26G).
Three New Ulcerative Colitis Plaintiffs Added to Discovery Pool
March 18, 2025
As required by the MDL judge, lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants have jointly selected 3 additional plaintiffs to add to the discovery pool for ulcerative colitis cases. These plaintiffs will join a group of other plaintiffs alleging that exposure to AFFF caused them to develop ulcerative colitis and go through a phase of intensive fact discovery. At the end of the discovery phase, some of these cases will be selected for bellwether trials (unless we get a global settlement first).
Growth Continues in MDL
March 8, 2025
Amid rumors of a potential settlement, the AFFF firefighting foam class action MDL saw its highest monthly volume of new cases in almost a year. 338 new AFFF cases were added in February, bringing the total number of pending cases to 8,430.
MDL Sees Surge in New Cases
February 15, 2025
After a brief decline, AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits are again rising. In October and November 2023, the total number of pending cases in the MDL dropped, largely due to water contamination claims reaching settlements and subsequently being dismissed. But that decline was short-lived.
By December, 270 new cases had been added, and in January, the pace of filings accelerated even further, with 459 additional lawsuits bringing the total number of pending cases to 8,092.
So, what’s driving this increase? Settlement rumors. When a global settlement appears to be in the works, attorneys move quickly to get cases on file before any cutoff is established. If a settlement is reached, there is often a deadline for inclusion, and waiting too long could mean missing out on compensation entirely.
For those affected by PFAS exposure, this surge in filings is a strong indication that time may be limited to take legal action. Many attorneys are advising potential claimants to file sooner rather than later to ensure their case is part of any future resolution.
Our law firm receives new AFFF-related inquiries daily, though the pace of new filings will fluctuate. AFFF lawyers often file new claims in batches, which sometimes distorts the numbers.y
New York Firefighter Lawsuit
January 23, 2025
This new AFFF firefighter lawsuit was filed last week. The claim arises from the devastating health consequences experienced by a retired firefighter, who served with the Yonkers Fire Department in New York for over three decades.
During his career, he was repeatedly exposed to toxic chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through firefighting foam (AFFF) and protective gear embedded with these substances. These exposures occurred during live fire responses, training exercises, and maintenance activities, including significant events such as the Con Edison substation fire in 1996. Despite assurances of safety from manufacturers, PFAS exposure has been linked to severe health risks, including thyroid disease, which the plaintiff was diagnosed with in 2019. His condition has caused him lasting pain, suffering, and economic losses, significantly altering his quality of life.
The plaintiff’s spouse, who has endured the emotional and relational toll of his illness, is also seeking damages for loss of consortium. The PFAS lawsuit contends that numerous companies, including major chemical manufacturers, negligently produced, marketed, and distributed PFAS-containing products, failing to warn users of their inherent dangers despite decades of research linking PFAS to serious health issues. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages to hold these companies accountable for their alleged disregard for public health and safety.
Fear of Punitive Damages May Drive AFFF Settlement Amounts
January 28, 2025
Punitive damages will be a key driving force in driving up AFFF lawsuit settlement amounts and likely be key to forcing the defendants to settle before the first personal injury trial this year.
Punitive damages are designed to punish defendants for egregious misconduct and deter similar behavior in the future. In AFFF litigation, plaintiffs allege that manufacturers like 3M and DuPont not only failed to warn the public about the dangers of AFFF foam but also actively concealed evidence of its toxicity for decades. This willful and reckless conduct is precisely what punitive damages aim to address. For juries, the idea of holding companies accountable for prioritizing profits over people could lead to significant awards far beyond compensatory damages, creating immense financial exposure for defendants.
The firefighting foam lawsuits are teed up for punitive damages. Internal documents reveal that companies knew about the risks of PFAS chemicals as early as the 1960s, yet failed to warn workers, firefighters, or communities. This high-stakes environment often pushes defendants toward settlement to avoid unpredictable and massive jury verdicts. Plaintiffs involved in these lawsuits—whether for personal injury, property damage, or environmental harm—stand to benefit significantly as settlement negotiations aim to reflect not only their individual damages but also the severity of the manufacturers’ misconduct.
Diseases Most Tied To AFFF
January 21, 2025
As we get (hopefully) closer to the finish line, we want to bring some clarity on which diseases we think are best linked to AFFF. Here are the firefighting foam lawsuits we think the science best supports, along with the strongest cases in terms of exposure:
| Injury | Minimum Time Between First Exposure and Diagnosis | 5 or More Exposures Over This Time Period |
|---|---|---|
| Kidney Cancer | 15 years (less for aggressive types of cancer) | 5 years |
| Testicular Cancer | 15 years (less for aggressive types of cancer) | 5 years |
| Thyroid Disease: Hypo and Hyperthyroidism, Hashimoto’s disease | 2 years | 2 years |
| Ulcerative Colitis | 2 years | 2 years |
Of course, it does not have to fit perfectly into this criterion. I’m just trying to give you an idea of what we think are the most compelling facts and patterns in this litigation.
The evidence is incredibly strong in these cases. I would bet on a first-year lawyer with a basic understanding of the rules of evidence at trial over the best lawyer 3M and DuPont have to offer in one of these cases.
Behind these claims are pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, male breast cancer, bladder cancer, and liver cancer. We are actively taking these cases and think they are strong enough to go to trial, and we think plaintiffs will win these cases in front of a jury. That should induce meaningful settlements in these lawsuits.
We think other types of cancer may also receive AFFF compensation payouts when there is a settlement. Because of the severity of the injury, you may also receive higher compensation in the second tier than the first tier in some cases.
New Lawsuit from Arizona
January 15, 2025
In a new AFFF lawsuit filed in the MDL, a firefighter from Flagstaff, Arizona, and his wife have alleged severe injuries caused by prolonged exposure to firefighting foams containing PFAS chemicals.
The plaintiff began his firefighting career with the Flagstaff Fire Department in 2002 and continues to serve the department. Throughout his career, he regularly used and handled Aqueous Film-Forming Foams during both training exercises and emergency firefighting operations.
The plaintiff recalls first being exposed to these foams during his initial training at the fire academy, where he frequently handled Class A and Class B firefighting foams. This exposure often involved direct skin contact, leaving his body covered in foam from head to toe during drills and clean-up activities. Like just about every firefighter in this litigation, he was not warned of any potential health risks associated with the foams and was led to believe that they were as harmless as concentrated dish soap.
For over two decades, the plaintiff’s responsibilities have included driving, operating, and maintaining fire trucks, which required him to pump AFFFs, clean foam residue from equipment, and replenish foam supplies. He routinely came into direct contact with AFFFs as part of these duties. Despite this repeated exposure, the manufacturers and distributors of these products failed to provide any warnings or instructions to minimize contact or highlight potential health hazards.
The plaintiff’s medical history reveals that he was first diagnosed with testicular cancer at the age of 21, before his firefighting career. Following successful treatment, including an orchiectomy, he fully recovered. However, after more than a decade of handling AFFFs, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer again. This recurrence included a significant tumor that required further medical interventions, including surgery and chemotherapy, which have not surprisingly caused lasting health complications.
Unlike many cancers, a recurrence is very rare. His doctor noted that it is exceedingly rare for an individual to develop testicular cancer twice, especially in cases where there is no history of smoking or other significant risk factors. The plaintiff has never smoked and had been in good health before his exposure to AFFFs.
In addition to his personal health challenges, the plaintiff’s wife has been directly impacted by the situation, as she and her husband have endured loss of companionship and the emotional and financial burdens associated with his medical treatments. They have been married since 1997 and reside in Flagstaff, where they have established their life together.
The plaintiff originally filed in Arizona and the defendants are seeking to remove the case to federal court.
New Study
January 7, 2025
A new study offers crucial insights for AFFF litigation by exploring how specific PFAS compounds impact neuronal function. This research is particularly relevant for attorneys representing victims of PFAS exposure because it uncovers molecular evidence linking these chemicals to neurodegenerative and behavioral disorders. The findings provide the mechanisms that may underpin neurological harm, ammunition that can be given to a jury.
The study analyzed the effects of six PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFDA, PFDS, 8:2 FTS, and 8:2 FTOH) on human-derived neuronal cells. It identified significant alterations in gene expression, with some compounds downregulating genes critical for synaptic growth and neural function, while others triggered stress responses tied to hypoxia and amino acid metabolism. These shifts could explain how PFAS disrupt brain health and contribute to conditions such as memory impairment or cognitive decline.
Further, the research revealed lipid imbalances caused by PFAS exposure, including changes in fatty acids and key lipid reserves essential for neuronal integrity. This molecular disruption underscores the structural dependence of PFAS toxicity, a critical factor in understanding their specific impacts on human health.
For attorneys, these findings offer an opportunity to integrate cutting-edge scientific evidence into legal strategies. The identification of biomarkers linked to PFAS neurotoxicity may prove instrumental in demonstrating to jurors the direct health impacts on firefighters, while the study’s detailed analysis of molecular disruptions strengthens arguments on how these toxins cause these injuries.
October 2025 Trial Date
November 14, 2024
We now have a trial date for the Tier 2 Group A bellwether trials, which is set to begin on October 6, 2025. So, what’s next?
The immediate focus will be on whether the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses will be allowed to testify, a decision that hinges on overcoming Daubert challenges raised by the defense. In a Daubert challenge, the court assesses the plaintiffs’ experts to ensure their testimony is relevant to the case and based on scientifically reliable methods.
The overarching question is when do the defendants want to settle this case? Before or after Daubert? For defendants, the upside of waiting until after Daubert is knocking out cases. But it is really unlikely that defendants win. If they pursue a global AFFF settlement before Daubert, the upside is that the experts have not yet been approved.
The latter strategy is probably the smarter play, but 3M is the ringleader of this defense. It skews toward believing the false hope generated by its lawyers and going for broke.
Progress Towards First Trial (October 6, 2025) Being Made
November 1, 2024
The court has issued a new case management order for the personal injury bellwether trial pool cases, laying out the timeline for discovery, expert witness disclosures, and trial preparations. This gives us a clearer picture of the path ahead to push these cases closer to trial and, hopefully, a global AFFF settlement before that first trial.
For Tier 2 Group A cases, the parties will continue fact-finding efforts until December 16, 2024, with strict limits on additional discovery requests. They will also coordinate non-party depositions during this period. After the discovery phase, plaintiffs and defendants will exchange expert witness reports, with expert depositions set to conclude by May 14, 2025. The first Group A cases trial is scheduled for October 6, 2025.
Meanwhile, the parties will negotiate which Group A cases should proceed to trial, with decisions on trial designations and motions due by April 2025. Any summary judgment or Daubert motions must be filed by June 6, 2025, with responses and replies due by July. (We explain Daubert motions in the September 1 update below.)
For Group B cases, fact discovery will extend through March 17, 2025, and the parties will submit expert exchange schedules for thyroid and ulcerative colitis claims by December 2024.
New Navy Firefighting Foam Lawsuit
October 23, 2024
In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a plaintiff from Boerne, Texas, is seeking damages in the MDL, alleging injury from exposure to PFAS-containing firefighting foam (AFFF) products manufactured by multiple companies, including 3M, Chemours, and DuPont. The plaintiff claims that repeated exposure to AFFF during a U.S. Navy career led to a diagnosis of thyroid cancer and other serious health issues due to the deadly bioaccumulative and carcinogenic properties of PFAS compounds within the foam.
Daubert
September 1, 2024
Daubert challenges will be key in the AFFF firefighting foam litigation, and we should win them easily. These motions focus on whether the scientific evidence presented by plaintiffs is admissible. These motions determine if expert testimony linking PFAS chemicals in AFFF to specific health conditions, such as cancer, meets the required standards of scientific reliability. Defendants will argue that the plaintiffs’ expert opinions are speculative or based on insufficient data, seeking to exclude these testimonies to weaken the plaintiffs’ case. Those Tier 1 and Tier 2 cases will be a tough argument for defendants and they might look foolish in front a jury if they push it too far.
One significant Daubert issue involves proving causation—specifically, whether exposure to PFAS chemicals in AFFF directly caused diseases like kidney, testicular, or prostate cancer. For example, in some earlier motions, defendants sought to dismiss expert testimony that connected PFAS exposure to contaminated water sources. However, courts have denied several such motions, allowing the plaintiffs’ causation experts to proceed. This likely foreshadows the rulings to come.
New Firefighting Foam Lawsuit
August 6, 2024
In a new AFFF lawsuit, Zub v. 3M Company et al., the plaintiff brings a wrongful death and survival action. Her husband, who worked as a firefighter and hazardous materials technician for Union County, New Jersey, was regularly exposed to aqueous film-forming foams during his career.
As a firefighter, he utilized AFFF in both training and emergency situations, unaware of the dangers posed by PFAS. The plaintiff alleges that prolonged exposure to these toxic substances led to her husband’s development of kidney cancer, ultimately resulting in his tragic death at the age of 35.
The plaintiff contends that the defendants knowingly designed, manufactured, and distributed AFFF products containing PFAS, while failing to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding their safe use. The suit asserts that the defendants were aware of the hazardous nature of PFAS but concealed this information, preventing the decedent and others from recognizing the risks. This fraudulent concealment and negligence in product design and safety measures are central to the allegations.
Nine Bellwethers Picked
July 22, 2024
Judge Gergel selected nine out of eleven cases proposed by the plaintiffs for the list of cases to go to trial first. These cases involve Pennsylvania residents with kidney or testicular cancer and Colorado residents with thyroid cancer or ulcerative colitis, all allegedly linked to exposure to aqueous film-forming foam.
So in a big win for plaintiffs, the court mostly followed the path plaintiffs proposed in the July 17 update below.
The defendants had proposed a different set of eleven cases, emphasizing what they incorrectly claimed was a more representative pool in terms of gender, age, and exposure period.
New Strategy Aims To Reduce Burden On Court
July 17, 2024
Lawyers for victims have made a great proposal to push the AFFF lawsuits along. They suggest selecting kidney and testicular cancer cases from Pennsylvania and thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis cases from Colorado. This strategy aims to reduce the burden on the court and parties by focusing on specific sites and minimizing the number of required depositions, expert reports, and evidence.
To settle these lawsuits, we need as many trial dates as possible. The defendants will oppose this, but it will be transparent that they just want to stall moving forward with trials.
Former Georgia Firefighter Files AFFF Lawsuit
July 11, 2024
A new AFFF lawsuit was filed yesterday on behalf of a Georgia man who was diagnosed with kidney cancer. He was a firefighter who served in the United States Navy at Memphis Naval Station in Memphis, Tennessee, from 1989 through 2023.
During his service, the plaintiff routinely used Class B foam and wore firefighting gear (turnouts) that contained PFAS-containing materials. As a result of prolonged exposure to PFAS, the plaintiff has been diagnosed with kidney cancer and is currently receiving treatment for this condition. The lawsuit alleges that the use of PFAS-containing materials in firefighting activities led to his kidney cancer.
New Study Provides New Tool For AFFF Lawsuits
June 27, 2024
A new study helps us better understand how PFAS interact with human skin. The researchers utilized in vitro 3D human skin equivalent models to analyze the absorption of 17 different PFAS when applied to the skin. They found that shorter-chain PFAS had higher absorption rates and that absorption decreased with increasing carbon chain length of the compounds.
Notably, while longer-chain PFAS were not absorbed directly into the skin, a substantial portion of these chemicals was retained within the skin tissue, which could potentially be released into the body over time. The study also highlighted the influence of physicochemical properties on the dermal permeation of PFAS, showing a clear inverse correlation between the lipophilicity of the substances and their absorption through the skin.
For plaintiffs’ experts in AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits, this study provides a potent new tool. The detailed analysis of PFAS absorption through the skin confirms that dermal exposure to these chemicals can contribute significantly to the body burden of PFAS.
This is particularly relevant in cases where plaintiffs have been exposed to firefighting foams containing PFAS. It provides a scientifically supported pathway of exposure that can link PFAS-containing products directly to all of the problems these firefighters are having. This evidence strengthens claims that manufacturers like 3M should have known about and warned against the risks associated with dermal exposure to PFAS.
AFFF Lawyers Drill Down On Six Specific Conditions
May 16, 2024
Our AFFF lawyers are now drilling down on six specific conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease/hypothyroidism, ulcerative colitis, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer.
Rough Outline Set Forth For Schedules And Procedures
May 7, 2024
CMO 26C directed the parties to devise a process for selecting plaintiffs for initial personal injury and wrongful death bellwether trials and preparing for those trials. Last night, the parties set forth a rough outline of the procedures and schedules for selecting and managing two groups of plaintiffs from a pool of 25 alleging four types of injuries:
- kidney cancer
- testicular cancer
- thyroid disease
- ulcerative colitis.
It sets forth a staggered schedule for discovery, expert testimony, motion practice, and trial preparations for these groups, aiming to efficiently handle the complex issues and extensive negotiations involved in the litigation.
New CMO Outlines Path To Science Day
March 21, 2024
New CMO #28 sets a schedule for both parties to identify and share scientific studies related to AFFF diseases other than those in the contaminated water lawsuits and a path to a Science Day.
What would an AFFF Science Day look like? A “Science Day” in the context of firefighting foam cancer lawsuits is an educational briefing for the MDL judge. This non-trial, non-hearing event is designed to elucidate the scientific and medical principles relevant to the litigation, which consolidates numerous lawsuits alleging that exposure to certain chemicals in firefighting foam caused cancer among firefighters and others.
During Science Day, experts from both parties are heard on topics such as the foam’s chemical composition, its potential carcinogenic effects, epidemiological studies, and other scientific evidence related to the case.
The purpose is to equip the judge with a solid understanding of the complex scientific matters that underpin the litigation, aiding in informed decision-making regarding expert testimony and other science-related legal issues.
So first, the plaintiffs must list the diseases they assert are linked to exposure. Following this, a series of deadlines have been established for both parties to exchange peer-reviewed articles supporting or disputing the associations between these diseases and the substance. The process culminates in a science day.
The CMO also discusses the selection of bellwether cases, setting a deadline of 60 days post-Science Day to propose how these representative cases will be chosen, guided by previous court directives.
The take-home message of all of this? We are not getting AFFF lawsuit trial dates in 2024.
Court Focuses More On Turnout Gear Claims
March 6, 2024
We have not talked much about the turnout gear PFAS claims. As the court becomes more focused on these claims, let’s take a closer look.
The case against the manufacturers of turnout gear involves allegations that exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are chemicals used in the manufacturing of the protective clothing worn by firefighters, has led to various health issues, including cancer and other illnesses.
Firefighter turnout gear, also known as protective gear, is designed to shield firefighters from heat, flames, and chemical exposure during firefighting operations. So plaintiffs contend that the turnout gear, which contains PFAS, has exposed them to harmful chemicals, leading to adverse health effects such as cancer, liver damage, thyroid disease, and other injuries.
A new court order, Case Management Order No. 5F, establishes procedures for the creation, submission, and management of Plaintiff Fact Sheets specific to cases involving claims related to firefighter turnout gear.
The order mandates the creation of a specific Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) tailored for cases involving claims against manufacturers of firefighter turnout gear. This is a new requirement for plaintiffs who are making these claims to fill out this fact sheet.
New Research Links Elevated PFAS Levels To Diets
February 25, 2024
New research indicates that diets high in processed meats, butter, and other foods could contribute to elevated levels of PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” in the bloodstream over time. The study highlights a variety of food items, including teas, pork, candy, sports drinks, chips, and bottled water, as potential contributors to increased PFAS levels. Additionally, it was observed that individuals consuming more takeout or restaurant-prepared food tend to have higher PFAS blood levels.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers and BASF Enter Into Tolling Agreement
February 16, 2024
Plaintiffs’ lawyers and BASF entered into a tolling agreement this week in nine AFFF cases.
What is a tolling agreement? A tolling agreement is a legal arrangement where parties agree to suspend or extend the statute of limitations on a claim, essentially pausing the countdown that limits the time to bring a lawsuit. In the context of an MDL, tolling agreements are often used to streamline pretrial proceedings by allowing parties to focus on negotiations or settlement discussions without the pressure of impending deadlines, ensuring that claims are not dismissed due to the expiration of statutory time limits while the MDL process is ongoing.
New Study Finds Link Between PFOS And Thyroid Cancer
October 24, 2023
Individuals with elevated concentrations of a particular PFAS, called linear perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), have a heightened likelihood of being diagnosed with thyroid cancer, as indicated by a study soon to be released in eBioMedicine, a publication of The Lancet. This research found a 56% increased risk of thyroid cancer among those with higher levels of linear PFOS.
New Study Provides Strong Link Between AFFF And Testicular Cancer
October 5, 2023
This study is the strongest proof yet of the link between testicular cancer and AFFF. We had plenty of evidence already, though. This is like shooting a person who has already been shot five times.
Recent Study Links AFFF To Testicular Cancer
August 20, 2023
A recent study confirms what AFFF lawyers getting calls from victims have long understood: AFFF may elevate the risk of testicular cancer.
Former Air Force Firefighter Joins AFFF MDL
August 18, 2023
A new AFFF lawsuit, Jones v. 3M, et al., was directly filed last week in the AFFF MDL in South Carolina against the usual cast of characters.
The plaintiff, a 73-year-old Texas man, was exposed to fluorochemical products during his service as a firefighter with the Air Force. He alleges that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer from AFFF exposure, which has caused him to undergo a prostatectomy. His lawsuit seeks compensation for his pain, suffering, and other damages.
Most of our military AFFF lawsuits are from the Navy, but we also see cases from the Army and Air Force.
Judge Grants Unopposed Motion To Substitute Plaintiff
August 1, 2023
Judge Gergel granted an unopposed motion to substitute plaintiffs after an Alabama plaintiff died. The man’s daughter is now the plaintiff in a wrongful death lawsuit. It is a stark reminder that many plaintiffs in this litigation may never see their settlements.
Three Leading Companies To Create Billion Dollar Settlement Fund
June 2, 2023
Three leading companies, The Chemours Company, DuPont de Nemours, and Corteva, have reached a preliminary agreement to address PFAS-related drinking water claims involving public water systems. Together, they will create a $1.185 billion settlement fund, which will be divided according to their agreed-upon contributions. The settlement is pending the final approval of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The deal excludes specific water systems.
Former Marine Files AFFF Lawsuit
March 7, 2023
A new AFFF firefighter lawsuit was filed this month. In Kent v. 3M, the plaintiff is a 62-year-old Deer Park, Texas, man. He was exposed to fluorochemical products while serving as a firefighter in the United States Marine Corps. This exposure led to his diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent prostatectomy. His firefighting foam lawsuit alleges he suffered personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress as the result of his exposure to fluorochemical products.
Plaintiff attorneys filed this complaint following Case Management Order No. 3, issued by Judge Richard M. Gergel. Judge Gergel is the AFFF class action lawsuit judge in South Carolina, which houses all federal AFFF suits. Under this order, the plaintiff designated the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas as the “home venue” for the case. His AFFF lawsuit asks that the case be transferred to the Southern District of Texas because the events or omissions leading to the claim occurred in Texas.
Information on Statute Of Limitations
February 3, 2023
Many victims do not contact us because they believe the statute of limitations deadline to file a lawsuit bars their claim. They correctly assume that the statute of limitations for filing an AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) lawsuit is typically 2-3 years from the date of injury in most states.
But most states have a discovery rule critical to extending the deadline to file an AFFF lawsuit. What is the discovery rule? It is an exception to the statute of limitations that delays its running until the plaintiff knows, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known, of both the injury and its cause. In other words, the time limit for filing a personal injury lawsuit does not start until the plaintiff becomes aware of the injury and its connection to the defendant’s negligence.
The statute of limitations and discovery rule are complicated, with scores of exceptions. But many victims looking to file an AFFF lawsuit call us, believing they likely do not have a claim in 2024 when they absolutely do.
Occupational Medicine Reports Firefighters 60% More Likely To Die Of Cancer
January 12, 2023
A new study in the journal Occupational Medicine reports that firefighters are 60% more likely to die of cancer than the general population. The death rate for prostate cancer was four times higher, leukemia was three times higher, and kidney cancer was double the rate in the overall population. The researchers made the obvious point that carcinogenic chemicals in AFFF may be a primary contributing factor.
Retired Judge Layn Phillips Appointed Settlement Mediator
November 1, 2022
With the first bellwether trial set for 2024, a court-appointed settlement mediator has now been assigned to “facilitate and encourage” global settlement discussions between both sides. The mediator, retired judge Layn Phillips, will face a complex task given that the AFFF litigation involves cancer claims by individual firefighters and claims by local municipalities for contamination of the water supply.
An AFFF settlement will be a Herculean task because of the different types of claims—some are individual, and some are entire communities. Additional defendants will also have different views of what an appropriate AFFF settlement should look like. But there is the possibility of some AFFF settlements from this effort, which would be in everyone’s best interest. Let’s see how these AFFF settlement talks go. The water contamination cases are likely to settle first. Why? Because those cases have the first trial date.
AFFF Lawsuit FAQs
What Is the Current Status of the AFFF Lawsuits?
What Factors Influence Potential AFFF Lawsuit Settlement Amounts?
How Does the AFFF Litigation Compare to Asbestos Lawsuits?
What Is the Significance of MDL 2873 in the AFFF Lawsuits?
How Have Recent Scientific Findings Impacted AFFF Litigation?
How Can Individuals Determine If They Qualify for an AFFF Lawsuit?
Victims who have been exposed to AFFF/PFAS and subsequently diagnosed with related health conditions should consult with experienced attorneys specializing in toxic torts. Our lawyers can examine your case and determine eligibility for lawsuit filing.
Exposure to AFFF has been linked to several severe health conditions. The six primary conditions associated with AFFF exposure that our lawyers are focusing on are:
-
Kidney Cancer: Studies have shown a connection between PFAS exposure and an increased risk of kidney cancer.
-
Testicular Cancer: Research indicates a higher incidence of testicular cancer among individuals exposed to AFFF.
-
Liver Cancer: Exposure to toxic firefighting foam has been associated with a higher risk of liver cancer.
-
Thyroid Cancer: PFAS exposure has been linked to an increased risk of thyroid cancer.
-
Thyroid Disease: Beyond cancer, PFAS exposure can lead to thyroid dysfunction, including hypothyroidism.
-
Ulcerative Colitis: Chronic exposure to PFAS has been associated with inflammatory bowel diseases, such as ulcerative colitis.
What Are the Anticipated Timelines for an AFFF Lawsuit Settlement?
How Does Recent Revelations About Manufacturers’ Knowledge of PFAS Toxicity Affect the Lawsuits?
Firefighting Foam (AFFF) Class Action Lawsuit
Aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) is used to extinguish fires and is commonly referred to as firefighting foam. It was recently discovered that prolonged use or exposure to certain chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam can cause cancer. Anyone regularly exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently diagnosed with kidney, pancreatic, prostate, or testicular cancer may be able to file an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit and get financial compensation.
All AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits in federal courts have been consolidated into a “class action” MDL in the District of South Carolina. As of August 2022, over 2,500 plaintiffs with firefighting foam cancer lawsuits are pending in the AFFF MDL. After bellwether test trials, the AFFF class action MDL will hopefully end in a global settlement.
AFFF Firefighting Foam Causes Cancer
AFFF (“aqueous film-forming foam”) is a sprayable foam specifically designed to extinguish high-intensity fires fueled by accelerants such as gasoline. The active chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam belong to a family of chemicals known as PFAS (poly-fluoroalkyl substances).
PFAS are a unique group of chemicals that are highly resistant to extreme heat and are not broken down by oil or water. Unfortunately, their indestructible nature means that they do not biodegrade or break down in the environment. These substances are marked by several extraordinarily robust and enduring carbon-fluorine bonds. PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because of their remarkable persistence in the environment and strong resistance to both metabolic and environmental degradation.
Over the last decade, an emerging body of scientific research has established that chronic exposure to PFAS in firefighting foam can cause certain types of cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency published a health advisory in 2016 noting that animal studies showed that prolonged exposure to PFAS resulted in kidney and testicular cancer.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conducted several studies that found that human exposure to PFAS results in a significantly increased kidney, prostate, and testicular cancer rate.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Cancer Society have reached the same conclusion, listing the chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam as human carcinogens.
Exposure to AFFF Firefighting Foam and PFAS
Anyone regularly exposed to AFFF firefighting foam over long periods is potentially at risk of developing cancer from PFAS. Chronic exposure to PFAS in AFFF firefighting foam can occur in two ways: (1) occupational exposure to AFFF and (2) PFAS contamination in drinking water.
Occupational AFFF Exposure
Individuals who worked in specific jobs or professions where AFFF firefighting foam was regularly used (either by themselves directly or by people around them) have what is considered “occupational exposure” to PFAS from firefighting foam.
Firefighters who regularly used AFFF or conducted training exercises with AFFF firefighting foam are the most prominent examples of individuals with occupational exposure and represent most of the victims in the AFFF class action lawsuit.
Since the late 1960s or early 1970s, the U.S. military has deployed MilSpec AFFF at military bases, airfields, and Navy vessels. These are places where fuel fires are not just possible but likely and potentially catastrophic. The military uses this substance to train its personnel, extinguish fires, save lives, and safeguard property. Still, the people using these products did not know they were being exposed to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals present in AFFF.
Beyond the military, other individuals who might have had occupational exposure to AFFF firefighting foam include those working in environments where AFFF was used extensively, disposed of, or even produced. For instance, commercial airports, where fuel fires are a common risk, frequently use firefighting foam during safety and emergency response training exercises. Similarly, industrial facilities, especially those dealing with flammable substances, also regularly use AFFF as part of their fire safety protocols.
- Our lawyers are seeing a lot of Navy AFFF lawsuits
Groundwater PFAS Exposure
The other category of people with chronic exposure to PFAS from AFFF firefighting foam would be individuals who consumed drinking water contaminated with PFAS. Hundreds and possibly thousands of residential areas across the country had groundwater highly contaminated with PFAS from firefighting foam.
Many residential locations with groundwater contaminated by PFAS are near military bases or airports where AFFF firefighting foam was regularly used. The PFAS in the firefighting foam eventually seeped through the soil and entered the water table.
Cancers Caused by AFFF Firefighting Foam
Scientific research has determined that chronic exposure to AFFF firefighting foam (both occupational exposure and groundwater contamination exposure) can cause increased rates of specific types of cancer. The types of cancer that have been linked to AFFF exposure include:
- Kidney cancer
- Bladder cancer
- Pancreatic cancer
- Liver Cancer
- Breast Cancer
- Leukemia (and other blood cancers)
- Prostate cancer
- Ovarian cancer
- Testicular cancer
- Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
How Many Plaintiffs Are in the AFFF Class Action Lawsuit?
As of March 2025, there are nearly 10,000 pending lawsuits in the AFFF (firefighting foam) class action MDL-2873.
These lawsuits consist of both municipal water contamination cases and individual personal injury claims, with many of the latter brought by former firefighters who allege they developed cancer due to exposure to AFFF. While the exact number of cases in each category has not been specifically tracked, the majority of the current lawsuits involve personal injury or wrongful death claims related to firefighting foam exposure.
Who Are the Defendants in AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuits?
The defendants named in the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits are companies that manufactured and sold AFFF products. Firefighting foam has been manufactured and sold by various companies. DuPont and 3M were two of the biggest manufacturers of AFFF firefighting foam and are vital defendants in the current AFFF lawsuits.
Evidence has been uncovered that by the 1970s, manufacturers like 3M, DuPont, and others were already very aware that the PFAS in their AFFF products were potentially toxic to the environment. Moreover, these companies became aware in the 1990s that these chemicals were harmful to humans and that long-term exposure might be linked to cancer.
Settlement Amounts for AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuits
The AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits will eventually be resolved in a mass tort global settlement. In these types of settlements, the defendants contribute a large sum of money into a settlement fund to pay settlement awards to individual plaintiffs who agree to accept the settlement.
The amount of settlement compensation received by individual plaintiffs is based on a tiered ranking system. Plaintiffs with the most robust AFFF cancer cases are ranked in the top tier and receive the highest settlement payouts. Plaintiffs with weaker claims are assigned to lower tiers and receive lower compensation.
In the AFFF lawsuits, the top settlement tier will probably be for plaintiffs with long-term occupational exposure to AFFF and diagnosis with one of the more dangerous cancer types that have been linked to AFFF (e.g., prostate, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, liver cancer, and ulcerative colitis). AFFF plaintiffs in lower settlement tiers would include people with less occupational exposure or a diagnosis of less severe types of cancer. We think the cancer cases will have the highest settlement values.
Based on settlement payouts in prior mass tort cases involving cancer, our lawyers predict that AFFF firefighting foam cases in the top settlement tier will have average settlement amounts of $300,000 to $600,000. Our estimated value for second-tier cases is $150,000 to $280,000. In some cases, the third tier may result in settlement payouts of $75,000 or less.
It is important to remember that these are predictions, not guaranteed future AFFF settlement ranges for individual claims. We try hard to make the best settlement predictions that we can. But anyone who thinks they know when and how much AFFF settlements will be is kidding themselves.
Hopefully, we will know what the AFFF settlement offers will look like sooner rather than later. There is speculation of a settlement, at least with some of the defendants, in the first half of 2025.
AFFF Firefighting Foam Class Action Lawyers
Many people exposed to AFFF have filed lawsuits against the companies that made the foam. The lawsuits allege that the companies were aware of the health risks but continued to sell the foam nonetheless. The lawsuits argue that the companies should be held accountable for the harm caused by AFFF.
Our law firm is currently accepting new AFFF firefighting foam cases in all 50 states. Every case has a potential statute of limitations issue. So act now. Contact our AFFF class action lawyers today to get your case started. Call 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.