Lawsuit Information Center
Millions of families in the U.S. may have had drinking water contaminated with PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl) substances commonly known as “forever chemicals.” PFAS include perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”) and perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”). These chemicals have been used for various industrial purposes for years, including use in firefighting foam products used to put out chemical fires.
Using PFAS around the country has led to widespread groundwater contamination. Exposure to PFAS in contaminated groundwater has been shown to cause cancer and other health conditions. If you have been diagnosed with cancer after being exposed to water contaminated with PFAS, you may be able to file a lawsuit and get financial compensation. This page will provide news and updates about PFAS water contamination lawsuits and our estimated settlement value of these cases.
If you have cancer and believe it was from PFAS exposure, call our PFAS lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or get a no-obligation free consultation online.
PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuit Updates for 2025
We start by keeping you abreast of the latest news, information, and updates related to PFAS water contamination lawsuits:
3M Reaches $450M PFAS Deal in NJ While DuPont Heads to Trial
New Jersey announced a $450 million settlement with 3M over PFAS water contamination tied to DuPont’s Chambers Works site. The deal includes over $60 million for cleanup and NRD starting in 2026, with payments stretching to 2050. It is separate from 3M’s AFFF MDL agreement. DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva refused to settle and face trial next week, with the state seeking nearly $1 billion for groundwater remediation.
While this case centered on environmental remediation, it demonstrates 3M’s urgency to shut down sprawling PFAS litigation before it expands further. Personal injury claims, which involve far more complex and emotionally charged allegations are a different beast entirely. This settlement does not touch those claims, but it adds pressure. The hope among plaintiffs’ lawyers is that these environmental payouts are just the first phase, and that personal injury lawsuits will soon take center stage. 3M clearly wants to box in its liability, but for victims suffering real, lasting harm, they want their turn at the settlement table.
3M Opposes Fourth Circuit Review in PFAS Contamination Case
3M has filed a response urging the Fourth Circuit not to reconsider a panel decision that kept PFAS contamination lawsuits from Maryland and South Carolina in federal court. The states had filed separate lawsuits. One is focused on consumer product-related PFAS contamination and the other on military-grade aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). To limit the application of the government contractor defense, 3M argues that because PFAS from both sources are chemically indistinguishable and commingled in the environment, all claims are necessarily connected to its federal work and should remain in federal court.
The panel previously sided with 3M, finding a sufficient nexus between the contamination allegations and 3M’s federal conduct to justify removal under the federal officer removal statute. The states are now seeking an en banc rehearing, asserting that their disclaimers regarding AFFF contamination should have allowed the consumer-focused cases to proceed in state court.
3M contends that the panel correctly followed precedent by crediting its theory of the case, including that a factfinder will need to resolve complex causation and allocation questions that implicate its federal defense. The company warns that allowing the states’ disclaimers to dictate jurisdiction would create a circuit split and undermine federal officer removal protections.
But this is a significant jurisdictional issue. If 3M succeeds in keeping these bifurcated cases in federal court, it will limit the states’ ability to pursue targeted claims and avoid the government contractor defense. In framing all PFAS contamination as inseparable, 3M is, as the plaintiffs motion says, “effectively trying to prevent states from holding it accountable in any court not shielded by federal defenses.”
The Fourth Circuit’s decision on whether to grant rehearing has broader implications for how PFAS litigation proceeds across jurisdictions, especially where states are deliberately structuring claims to focus on consumer-level pollution.
Judge Picks 12 Test Sites to Help Trace PFAS Contamination to Manufacturers
A group of over 50 plaintiffs from across the country has filed suit in Alabama federal court, alleging they suffered serious personal injuries due to exposure to AFFF.
The lawsuit names dozens of major chemical manufacturers—including 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and Tyco—as defendants. It claims they knowingly produced and distributed AFFF containing PFAS compounds such as PFOA and PFOS, which contaminated drinking water and caused lasting health damage. The claims include negligence, battery, nuisance, fraudulent concealment, and product liability.
The case was initially filed in Alabama state court but has since been removed to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. Tyco, one of the defendants, asserts it was manufacturing AFFF under strict specifications set by the U.S. Department of Defense and is, therefore, entitled to a government contractor defense. The plaintiffs allege their injuries resulted from exposure to both military and civilian use of PFAS-laden foam over many years, and they seek damages for pain, suffering, medical costs, and punitive relief.
Judge Picks 12 Test Sites to Help Trace PFAS Contamination to Manufacturers
The MDL judge has picked 12 sites that will serve as test cases to help figure out which companies made the toxic chemicals or firefighting foam responsible for pollution. These locations—mainly airports, fire stations, and training facilities—are spread across seven states, including Maryland, Florida, and Alaska.
The idea is to see if records from these sites can trace the PFAS contamination back to specific manufacturers of firefighting foam. These facilities were chosen because they are more likely to still have purchase records that could show who made and sold the foam. Without this link, it becomes much harder for plaintiffs to prove which companies are on the hook for the toxic exposure.
New Water Contamination Lawsuit
In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a family from West Haven, Connecticut, joined the growing multidistrict litigation over PFAS and AFFF exposure. As you see in so many of these lawsuits, the family alleges that their child developed serious health conditions—including ulcerative colitis and liver damage—after years of exposure to toxic chemicals found in firefighting foam and contaminated drinking water.
According to the complaint, the child was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis in 2022 and later identified with elevated liver enzymes in 2023. The suit argues these injuries were caused by prolonged exposure to PFAS, including in utero exposure, as the chemicals are known to persist in the body and environment.
The family’s claims center on product liability, negligence, and failure to warn, asserting that the defendants knew of the dangers of PFAS in AFFF but continued to manufacture and distribute the products without adequate warnings. They seek both compensatory and punitive damages for the harm sustained
MDL Judge Shoots Down Government’s Motion to Dismiss
A federal judge in South Carolina has denied the U.S. government’s broad attempt to dismiss all PFAS-related lawsuits, ruling that site-specific facts must be examined before deciding jurisdiction. The decision means that cases against the military for PFAS contamination—including those brought by local communities, businesses, and state governments—will continue.
Judge Richard M. Gergel rejected the government’s effort to shield itself under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and CERCLA, stating that “material jurisdictional facts at the outstanding sites are still in dispute.” While the government succeeded in dismissing some claims tied to Cannon Air Force Base, particularly those seeking injunctive relief, claims involving negligent handling of AFFF contamination at military sites remain active.
This ruling reinforces that the government can still be held accountable for operational failures in handling toxic firefighting foam, opening the door for more site-specific claims to move forward. The next steps will involve jurisdictional discovery at the remaining contaminated sites, ensuring that affected plaintiffs have their day in court.
New Teva and Estée Lauder Water Contamination Lawsuit
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Estée Lauder Cos. are among more than a dozen companies sued by the Village of Nyack, N.Y., over allegations that their manufacturing and waste disposal operations contaminated the town’s drinking water supply with toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeks to hold the companies financially responsible for testing, monitoring, and installing water treatment systems to remove PFAS from the Hackensack River, Nyack’s primary water source. According to the complaint, the defendants’ facilities, which include pharmaceutical, cosmetic, industrial, and waste processing plants, used PFAS in manufacturing, product formulations, and waste disposal. These chemicals allegedly leached into the environment, ultimately contaminating the town’s drinking water.
The complaint asserts that Teva, Estée Lauder, and other defendants “knew, or should have known” that their operations were releasing PFAS into the water supply, posing significant health risks. The chemicals, often called “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment, have been linked to cancer, immune system suppression, and other health problems.
The lawsuit states that Nyack’s water supply contains PFAS levels exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency’s newly established maximum contaminant level of 4.0 parts per trillion. The village argues that the contamination has created an ongoing public nuisance, interfering with residents’ right to clean and safe drinking water.
Santa Clara County Files PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuit
Santa Clara County, California, filed a significant new water contamination lawsuit this week against various companies. The lawsuit alleges that PFAS chemicals have contaminated the public water supply systems servicing county residents from AFFF firefighting foam manufactured by the defendants, which include 3M and DuPont.
New Study
A new study published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology links PFAS in drinking water to increased cancer incidence across the U.S. from 2016 to 2021. Using data from the SEER Program and PFAS monitoring programs, researchers found associations between PFAS exposure and cancers in the digestive, respiratory, endocrine, and oral cavity/pharynx systems. They estimated that PFAS in drinking water contributed to 4,626–6,864 cancer cases annually. Notable findings include strong links between PFBS and oral cancers and PFHxS and digestive cancers, underscoring the health risks posed by these “forever chemicals.”
The study also identified sex-specific risks, with thyroid and oral cancers linked to PFAS in females and brain, urinary, and leukemia cancers linked in males. PFAS compounds, known for their endocrine-disrupting properties and ability to damage DNA, are now shown to affect a broader range of cancers than previously studied.
Do we need more evidence that PFAS cause cancer? Not really. But more weapons are always good, and this study helps with some plaintiffs where the evidence of a connection was not as strong. So this research bolsters PFAS-contaminated drinking water lawsuits by providing scientific evidence that directly links these chemicals to specific cancers. We will leverage these findings to argue that water suppliers and manufacturers failed to prevent or address known contamination risks. The study’s detailed estimates of cancer cases attributable to PFAS contamination strengthen negligence claims and help quantify damages, offering a robust foundation for legal arguments in ongoing and future litigation.
New Agreement
A new proposed order, issued yesterday, outlines procedures for selecting sites where AFFF, a firefighting foam linked to PFAS contamination, is alleged to have been used and caused environmental damage.
Not surprisingly, the focus is on locations such as airports and fire training centers, designated as “Real Property Product ID Sites.” Eligibility for this category requires plaintiffs to meet specific procedural milestones: filing and serving complaints by December 20, 2024, and submitting a thoroughly completed Plaintiff Fact Sheet by the end of December, with any deficiencies addressed by January 17, 2025.
The process involves the Defense Coordinating Committee providing a proposed Product ID Profile Form by January 17, 2025, which will facilitate the identification of relevant sites by gathering basic information through a standardized checklist. This form aims to streamline the initial screening process without necessitating verification or signature from plaintiffs, thus speeding up the selection process. By February, the parties are expected to have proposed and agreed upon a list of 10 to 15 sites for more detailed product identification discovery, which will commence immediately and continue for six months. This discovery phase will include written and documentary discovery and depositions, adhering strictly to the scope defined in the CMO to ensure focused and efficient proceedings.
The whole idea here is to manage the complexities of the litigation efficiently. We need a clear, predefined path that facilitates the gathering of evidence necessary for resolving claims related to AFFF contamination, and this order helps organize the water contamination lawsuits. The lawyers were able to agree because this plan helps both plaintiffs seeking redress and defendants coordinating their defense strategies.
Where Are the Biggest Problems?
What are the most vulnerable states in the U.S. when it comes to PFAS contamination and environmental risks, and where should testing be prioritized? It’s a tough question, and the list of impacted states keeps growing. PFAS have infiltrated water systems, soils, and communities nationwide, leaving no region untouched by the environmental and health risks they pose.
Each state faces unique challenges based on geography, climate, and industrial activity. For example, California, already grappling with devastating wildfires like those currently sweeping Los Angeles, also faces significant PFAS risks. Firefighting foams, widely used to combat these fires, are a major source of PFAS contamination in water supplies, making urgent water quality testing necessary in affected regions. Meanwhile, Florida, with its dual threats of coastal flooding and hurricanes, is at risk of PFAS spreading through saltwater intrusion and stormwater runoff, particularly in communities near military installations or airports where firefighting foam has been heavily used.
Texas, another PFAS hotspot, must contend with contamination near industrial hubs and areas affected by hurricanes, where storm surges can carry PFAS into drinking water supplies. Similarly, Louisiana’s vulnerability to coastal erosion and powerful storms highlights the need for comprehensive water testing in areas near chemical plants and oil refineries, which are known sources of spitting out tons of PFAS pollution. Even states like New York, often regarded as environmentally resilient, face significant risks from aging infrastructure and PFAS contamination near former manufacturing sites and military bases.
In the Southwest, prolonged drought conditions in Arizona are straining groundwater resources, making PFAS testing critical as communities rely more heavily on these aquifers. Further north, Michigan stands as a cautionary tale, with its history of PFAS-contaminated drinking water in cities like Parchment and Oscoda, alongside the ongoing fallout from industrial pollution in areas like Flint. The state remains a high-priority zone for widespread PFAS monitoring and remediation.
More Water Contamination Lawsuit Updates and News
November 23, 2024: Nantucket Residents File PFAS Lawsuit
Today’s PFAS update involves a group of residents on Nantucket Island who have filed a class action lawsuit against PFAS manufacturers for contamination of their water supply. The lawsuit comes after the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection found extremely high levels of PFAS in well water for a group of houses in the Toms Way neighborhood. The houses are very close to a site formerly occupied by the Nantucket Electric Company, which is suspected to be the source of the contamination. Defendants named in the lawsuit include Dupont, The 3M Company, Arkema, and BASF Corp.
October 24, 2024: Staggering Numbers
States with the most residents exposed to PFAS through public water systems include Florida and California, while private wells in Michigan, North Carolina, New York, and Ohio are particularly affected. The EPA recently set the first national standards for six types of PFAS, limiting exposure levels to 4 parts per trillion for specific chemicals like PFOA and PFOS, although the goal is zero exposure. The study’s predictive model aims to prioritize future water testing efforts, especially for private well users, who may have limited access to water quality information.
This was a comprehensive study. The researchers analyzed 1,238 groundwater samples to understand how urban development and well depth influence PFAS contamination but did not estimate exact concentrations or factor in water treatment efforts.
October 23, 2024: New Ulcerative Colitis Lawsuit
In a new lawsuit filed last week, a New York firefighter has brought an AFFF ulcerative colitis lawsuit against several chemical manufacturers, including 3M Company, DuPont, Chemours, and others. The plaintiff alleges that prolonged exposure to drinking water contaminated with AFFF, containing toxic chemicals like PFOA and PFOS, led to a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff was exposed to these hazardous chemicals over an extended period due to the defendants’ manufacturing and distribution of firefighting foam products used in the vicinity. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the plaintiff’s severe personal injuries and ongoing suffering.
Ulcerative colitis, while not as frequently discussed as cancers in water contamination litigation, is a significant and debilitating condition linked to PFAS exposure. This chronic inflammatory bowel disease causes long-term inflammation and ulcers in the digestive tract, leading to severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, and weight loss. PFAS found in AFFF and other industrial chemicals are known to accumulate in the human body and disrupt the immune and gastrointestinal systems.
Studies have clearly shown that exposure to high levels of PFAS can increase the risk of developing ulcerative colitis, as these chemicals trigger immune responses and inflammation in the digestive system.
October 5, 2024: DOD
The Department of Defense is intensifying its efforts to address widespread PFAS contamination on military installations in response to mounting health concerns over these toxic “forever chemicals.” Following new EPA drinking water standards that set the safety threshold at 4 parts per trillion, the DoD issued a directive to prioritize PFAS cleanup across hundreds of military sites.
Currently, investigations are underway at 350 locations, with plans to assess an additional 150 sites in the next two years. This is good news. This move signals the DoD’s commitment to accelerating remediation efforts and improving transparency after facing criticism for its slow response to PFAS contamination, which, as you know if you are reading this, has been linked to serious health issues like cancer and thyroid disorders.
The DoD’s updated strategy goes beyond just meeting federal guidelines, aiming for stricter measures to mitigate risks to military families and surrounding communities. As scrutiny increases, the DoD’s handling of PFAS contamination will be closely monitored as a test of its commitment to safeguarding public health on and around its bases.
September 19, 2024: Texas Resident Files Lawsuit Alleging Contaminated Drinking Water
A Texas man has filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging that exposure to AFFF containing toxic chemicals like PFOA and PFOS caused him to develop thyroid disease. The plaintiff, a Texas resident named in the lawsuit, claims that the exposure occurred through contaminated drinking water in his area. The lawsuit states that the plaintiff unknowingly ingested the chemicals over a prolonged period, leading to severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress.
The plaintiff alleges that the companies involved, including 3M Company, Dupont de Nemours, Chemours, and others, manufactured and distributed AFFF and related products containing these hazardous chemicals. The lawsuit claims that the defendants were aware of the health risks posed by PFOA and PFOS but failed to provide adequate warnings or take measures to protect consumers. The case seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the plaintiff’s injuries and calls for a trial to be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the plaintiff resides and was exposed to the chemicals.
September 5, 2024: More Claims Involving Port Hueneme
Our lawyers are seeing more claims involving Port Hueneme Naval Base in California. We are investigating these claims.
August 29, 2024: New Study On Sources Of PFAS In Airway Heights
A new study concludes that both historical uses of firefighting foam at Fairchild Air Force Base and a local landfill could have contributed to the PFAS contamination in Airway Heights, Washington.
Initiated after detecting unusual PFAS levels in 2017, the study examined potential sources like wildfires, landfills, aircraft crash sites, and pesticide use on nearby farmlands. Researchers employed interviews, document analysis, and reviewed scientific and media articles to compile their findings.
This comprehensive analysis suggests that the contamination is likely due to multiple sources, including, echoing the Camp Lejeune debacle, long-standing practices at the base and local waste management methods.
August 24, 2024: 7th Circuit Rules 3M PFAS Lawsuit Should Remain In State Court
The 7th Circuit ruled that an Illinois lawsuit against 3M regarding PFAS contamination should remain in state court.
The panel determined that the federal officer removal statute does not apply because Illinois is not seeking damages for PFAS contamination related to the U.S. military’s use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) at the Rock Island Arsenal. Instead, Illinois is pursuing damages for contamination solely from PFAS discharged from 3M’s facility in Cordova.
Despite 3M’s attempts to argue for federal jurisdiction based on its role as a federal contractor, the court upheld the previous decision to remand the case to state court, emphasizing that Illinois had clearly limited its claims to those not involving AFFF contamination.
August 15, 2024: Investigation Into PFAS At Mohawk And Shaw Facilities
Our legal team is actively investigating potential lawsuits related to PFAS chemical exposure at Mohawk and Shaw facilities.
August 8, 2024: Illinois PFAS Lawsuit Remanded To State Court
An Illinois lawsuit concerning PFAS pollution in the Mississippi River has been remanded to state court after 3M failed to demonstrate federal jurisdiction.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that 3M did not have a viable federal defense against claims that it violated state laws by contaminating the river with PFAS.
3M had attempted to use the federal government contractor defense, arguing unsuccessfully once again that PFAS could have come from its own facility or a nearby military installation. However, the court determined that Illinois is only seeking relief for pollution originating from 3M’s Cordova facility, making the federal defense irrelevant and affirming an earlier district court ruling.
August 6, 2024: 3M Removes PFAS Lawsuit To Federal Court
3M removed to federal court today a lawsuit filed by 88 plaintiffs who allege PFAS exposure near various military bases across the country. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for personal injuries, property damage, and environmental harm caused by the contamination of groundwater from PFAS substances like PFOS and PFOA, which are known to be toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative.
The complaint details the history of PFAS usage, the known dangers associated with these chemicals, and the alleged failures of the defendants to warn of these risks. It accuses the defendants of knowing the harmful effects of these chemicals on human health and the environment, yet continuing to produce and sell them without proper disclosures or precautions. The legal action is based on claims of negligence, failure to warn, and the direct link between exposure to PFAS and various health problems experienced by the plaintiffs.
July 28, 2024: EPA To Begin Testing For PFAS Near Army Bases
The EPA will begin testing private drinking water wells for PFAS contamination near U.S. Army bases, as part of a pilot program announced on Friday.
The initiative, which may expand to other Army locations, aims to identify the presence of PFAS that could be leaking from military sites. The selected bases include:
- Fort Liberty in North Carolina
- Fort Hunter Ligett and Parks Reserve Forces Training Area in California
- Fort Stewart and Fort Stewart—Hunter Army Airfield in Georgia
- Fort Novosel in Alabama
- Blue Grass Army Depot and Fort Campbell in Kentucky
- Fort Sill and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in Oklahoma
The hope is that it eventually does every base so we can all see what is what. The agency recently set a strict drinking water standard for several PFAS, including a non-enforceable goal of zero parts per trillion for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), reflecting what our lawyer have been saying for a long time: no safe level of these chemicals exists.
July 15, 2024: New Lawsuit Filed On Behalf Of Ohio Resident
A new lawsuit was filed on Friday on behalf of an Ohio man who is seeking damages related to the alleged contamination of his drinking water by fluorochemical products, specifically those contained in AFFF.
Plaintiff says contaminated drinking water has resulted in his developing testicular cancer, necessitating medical treatments including an orchiectomy—a surgical procedure involving the removal of one or both testicles.
The lawsuit details that the defendants were aware of the harmful effects of their fluorochemical products for decades but continued to manufacture and sell them without adequate warnings or instructions, contributing to the contamination of public drinking water sources. Adkins seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the injuries and economic losses suffered due to the defendants’ alleged negligence, defective product design, failure to warn, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
July 9, 2024: New Lawsuit Filed Alleging PFAS In Band-Aid Products
Concerns about the risk of PFAS go beyond just drinking water and firefighting foam. A new lawsuit has been filed by Rebekah Badilla against Kenvue Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., alleging that certain Band-Aid products contain PFAS without informing consumers.
The proposed nationwide consumer class action, filed in federal court, claims that Band-Aid products, including Band-Aid Flexible Fabric Comfortable Protection Bandages and Band-Aid Water Block Tough-Strips Waterproof Adhesive Bandages, contain PFAS, which were designated as hazardous substances by the EPA in April 2024.
The lawsuit argues that Kenvue markets these bandages with health-focused claims, misleading consumers into believing they are made with safe materials. Badilla’s complaint highlights the serious health risks associated with PFAS exposure, such as cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, and increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease, as noted by the CDC.
Badilla asserts that Kenvue uses PFAS in its adhesive bandages for their waterproof qualities and accuses the defendants of knowingly concealing this information from consumers. She seeks to represent a nationwide class of potentially millions of consumers, as well as a New York subclass, alleging violations of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. The suit demands restitution for the class members, claiming that if consumers had known about the PFAS content, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less.
The lawsuit also points out that testing by watchdog group Mamavation found PFAS in several Band-Aid products, confirming Badilla’s claims. Kenvue Inc., created from Johnson & Johnson’s healthcare division spinoff in 2023, is named alongside Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. as defendants.
July 1, 2024: New Lawsuit Alleges PFAS Contamination In Decatur, Alabama
A new water contamination lawsuit alleges that 3M, Toray, and Daikin have knowingly contaminated the environment with PFAS in Decatur, Alabama.
The plaintiff, a long-time resident of North Alabama, claims that prolonged exposure to contaminated drinking water has resulted in his prostate cancer diagnosis. The lawsuit details that PFAS chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS, persist in the human body and accumulate over time, causing severe health issues such as various cancers, thyroid disease, and infertility. Despite being aware of the toxicity of these chemicals since the 1970s, the companies continued to release them into the environment.
The plaintiff’s water sources, historically containing PFAS levels far exceeding the proposed safety limits, are cited as the cause of his prostate cancer.
The case was filed in Alabama state court and was removed to federal court by the defendants on Friday.
June 29, 2024: Map Of Drinking Water Problem Areas
Newsweek has a good map of the drinking water problem areas.
July 26, 2024: Proposed Class Action Alleges PFAS In Protective Firefighting Gear
Connecticut firefighters have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against 3M, DuPont, and 17 other companies, alleging exposure to harmful levels of PFAS in their protective gear.
The lawsuit, initiated by the Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association and five firefighter unions, claims that firefighters absorbed these toxic chemicals through their skin, particularly while sweating, and also ingested and inhaled them. They accuse the companies of knowing the dangers of the equipment but misleading users by marketing them as safe, failing to warn about significant health risks, and profiting from these actions.
This PFAS claim seeks compensatory and punitive damages and demands that the companies stop making PFAS-containing gear. Additionally, it calls for the establishment of a medical program to monitor and diagnose health issues related to PFAS exposure.
June 10, 2024: Water Utility Associations Petition Federal Court To Challenge EPA’s Limits On PFAS In Drinking Water
Two water utility associations, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, have petitioned a federal court to challenge the EPA’s national limits on PFAS in drinking water. The rule, issued in April, sets parts per trillion limits on five PFAS substances and introduces a novel approach for limiting mixtures of three of these substances along with perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS). The associations argue that the EPA did not use the best available science or the most recent data and that the rule does not address concerns related to the affordability of safe drinking water for households.
This is frustrating. By opposing the science-based regulations intended to mitigate the known risks of PFAS contamination, these utilities undermine efforts to protect millions of Americans from harmful chemicals in their drinking water. We all get it, we have to be mindful of the economic impact of these rules. But there is an urgent need to address these toxic substances’ long-term health effects.
Frequently Asked Questions About PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuits
PFAS contamination has become one of the biggest environmental and public health crises in recent history, affecting drinking water, military bases, and entire communities. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against manufacturers like 3M, DuPont, and Chemours, as well as claims targeting the U.S. government for mishandling toxic firefighting foam. If you’ve been exposed to PFAS and developed serious health conditions like cancer or thyroid disease, you may be eligible for compensation.
Below our attorneys break down the most common questions about PFAS water contamination lawsuits, including who qualifies, expected settlement amounts, and why some cases are stronger than others.
What’s the Strongest PFAS Personal Injury Lawsuit Right Now?
Certain cases are way stronger than others, based on scientific evidence and exposure history. The best PFAS lawsuits involve:
✔ Kidney cancer lawsuits (strongest link to PFAS exposure)
✔ Testicular cancer lawsuits (especially in firefighters and military personnel)
✔ Thyroid disease lawsuits (new studies make this a strong claim)
✔ Ulcerative colitis lawsuits (often overlooked and likely lower settlement amounts but the science is really strong)
If you’ve been diagnosed with one of these conditions and had PFAS exposure, your case is worth serious money.
Will the Military Pay for PFAS Exposure at Bases Like Camp Lejeune?
Right now, military base water contamination lawsuits focus more on holding manufacturers like 3M, DuPont, and Chemours liable, not the Department of Defense (DoD) itself. But recent legal developments suggest a shift toward direct accountability for the military. In February 2025, the PFAS MDL judge indicated that Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico might be liable for certain PFAS releases, particularly those deemed preventable and non-mission critical. This perspective challenges the traditional immunity often claimed by the military under the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act. As a result, we may see an increase in lawsuits directly targeting the DoD for environmental contamination caused by its operations.
Will My PFAS Drinking Water Lawsuit Be Part of a Mass Settlement?
Probably. PFAS lawsuits are following the same path as past mass torts like Roundup, asbestos, and Camp Lejeune—a flood of lawsuits, a handful of trials, then a massive global settlement.
✔ Bellwether trials set the bar for damages.
✔ Defendants lose big (or, more likely, see the writing on the wall and settle before the first trial).
✔ A settlement fund is created, with compensation tiers for different injuries (which we flush out more below)
The key? Having the “right type” of PFAS exposure (military base, firefighter, contaminated tap water) and a diagnosed condition already strongly linked to PFAS (kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, etc.).
What Is the Catch with PFAS Class Action Lawsuits?
Let’s be real—most PFAS class action lawsuits will not get you a huge settlement payout. These lawsuits typically cover:
✔ Consumer fraud claims (Did you buy a product that contained PFAS without knowing it?)
✔ Municipality claims (Cities and states suing for cleanup costs)
If you developed cancer from PFAS exposure, a personal injury lawsuit is the way to go. Individual claims will see way higher settlements than a PFAS class action lawsuit.
How Much Will PFAS Lawsuit Settlements Pay for Cancer Cases?
We get this question a lot, and we discuss it in more granular detail below. This is our prediction:
- Top-tier cases (kidney cancer, testicular cancer, pancreatic cancer, thyroid disease) could see $150,000 – $375,000+ per claim.
- Mid-tier cases (ulcerative colitis, immune disorders) could settle in the $75,000 – $180,000 range.
- Lower-tier claims may get less, but are still worth pursuing.
The best settlements will go to plaintiffs with clear exposure history (military bases, firefighters, water systems with high PFAS levels). If you’re in that category, your case is valuable.
Why Are Firefighters Filing PFAS Lawsuits?
Because they’ve been exposed to insanely high levels of PFAS—and the evidence is overwhelming.
🔥 Firefighting foam (AFFF) is loaded with PFAS.
🔥 Firefighter protective gear contains PFAS.
🔥 Studies link firefighter PFAS exposure to increased cancer risks.
Firefighters did not sign up to be poisoned. The manufacturers of AFFF knew about PFAS risks for decades but covered it up. That’s why these cases are strong, and settlement payouts will likely be significant.
About PFAS
PFAS are per-fluoroalkyl and poly-fluoroalkyl substances. These synthetic chemicals are known for their ability to resist grease, water, and oils. The two most common types of PFAS are perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”) an“ perluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”).
PFAS has been around for over 60 years and during that time they have been widely used in a number for a number of industrial and consumer purposes. PFAS were used in non-stick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, cleaning products, and paints. The most significant use of PFAS, however, was in aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) commonly called firefighting foam.
PFAS are called “forever chemicals” because ”hey have proven highly resistant to almost any environmental degradation. As a result, when PFAS are introduced into the environment, they never degrade, get diluted, or go away.
PFAS Contamination in Groundwater
In recent years, environmental studies and testing have identified widespread PFAS contamination of groundwater across the United States. Groundwater is highly susceptible to PFAS contamination because of these chemical properties.
PFAS can easily be released into the environment at any location where the chemicals are manufactured, used, disposed of or spilled. PFAS are highly mobile chemicals so once released into the environment they are easily transported by rainwater run-off. By this route, PFAS end up in lakes, ponds and reservoirs. PFAS also seep through the soil (where they are not filtered like other chemicals) and end up in the groundwater.
Groundwater contamination with PFAS is widespread near areas where PFAS were manufactured. Water contamination is also highly likely near locations where PFAS products were regularly used or disposed of. For example, airports are frequent contamination sites because firefighting foam is frequently used in training exercises. Once the firefighting foam is sprayed, the PFAS make their way into the groundwater with minimal dilution.
Drinking Water Standards
Drinking water standards in the United States have a long history, stretching back more than a century. The earliest formal standards were established by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1914. At that time, the primary focus was on ensuring that the water supply was free of harmful bacteria, specifically targeting bacterial plate count and coliform bacteria. These early efforts laid the groundwork for a more structured approach to regulating water safety, though they were limited by the scientific understanding of the time.
As the understanding of waterborne contaminants expanded, so too did the scope of the regulations. By 1925, some inorganic constituents were added to the list of harmful substances that required regulation, recognizing that harmful chemicals, not just bacteria, could pose serious health risks. The regulations evolved further in 1942, reflecting a growing awareness of different pollutants.
A significant milestone came in 1963 with the publication of the Water Quality Criteria, which became a reference point for water safety standards. This document provided a comprehensive list of the water pollutants known at the time and their potential health impacts. One of the chemicals it highlighted was trichloroethylene (TCE), a solvent widely used in industrial processes. Even in 1963, TCE was recognized as a substance that could have serious health consequences if it contaminated drinking water. The Water Quality Criteria identified chlorinated hydrocarbons, the chemical family to which TCE belongs, as pollutants that posed significant risks to human health.
This evolving understanding of what makes drinking water unsafe has continued to shape regulations over the decades, with increasingly sophisticated methods for detecting and regulating both biological and chemical contaminants.
TCE and Drinking Water
TCE is the most common organic contaminant in groundwater, the source of 93% of public water systems. TCE is present in up to one-third of our drinking water sources.
TCE levels in private wells (used for crop irrigation and drinking water for about 10% of Americans) are not monitored. Contact with TCE can be elevated for people using TCE-containing cleaning products, residents of some industrialized areas, or people living near facilities where TCE is released in a sanctioned or unsanctioned manner into the soil, groundwater, and/or drinking water wells.
Safe Drinking Water Act and MCLs
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), enacted in 1974, established comprehensive drinking water safety standards in the United States. This landmark legislation mandated the implementation of both primary and secondary drinking water standards to ensure water quality and public health protection. Under the SDWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with setting Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), which are enforceable standards specifying the maximum permissible amount of a contaminant in public water systems.
An MCL is derived from the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), which represents the level at which no known or expected health effects occur, allowing a margin of safety. Notably, the MCLG for carcinogens is set at zero, reflecting a zero-tolerance policy for cancer-causing substances in drinking water.
The EPA’s regulation of MCLs primarily targets a variety of hazardous contaminants, including pesticides, trihalomethanes (a byproduct of chlorine disinfection), and several chlorinated solvents. These solvents include vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroethylene, and benzene. Such contaminants are central issues in high-profile environmental litigation, such as the Camp Lejeune toxic water lawsuit.
The MCLs are crucial tools in the EPA’s arsenal to combat water pollution and safeguard drinking water from chemical hazards, reflecting ongoing efforts to protect public health from the adverse effects of contaminated water supplies.
PFAS Are Linked to Cancer and Other Health Hazards
Current scientific research has determined that long-term exposure to high levels of PFAS can lead to cancer and other adverse health conditions. Scientific studies have conclusively found that exposure to PFAS at certain levels can lead to:
- Increased risk of prostate cancer, kidney cancer, and testicular cancer.
- Damage to reproductive health, including infertility
- Pregnancy complications
- Developmental problems in children, including loss of bone density and accelerated puberty
- Immune system problems
- Ulcerative colitis
- Thyroid disease
The development of cancer and other health conditions can occur years after individual exposure to PFAS.
In 2016, the National Toxicology Program of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“NTP”) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) both released extensive analyses of the expanding body of research regarding the adverse effects of PFAS. The NTP concluded that both PFOA and PFOS are “presumed “o be an immune hazard to humans” based on ”a “consistent pattern of findings” of adverse immune effects in human (epidemiology) studies and “high confidence” that PFO” and PFOS exposure was 28 associated with suppression of immune responses in animal (toxicology) studies.
IARC similarly concluded that there is “evidence “of “the ”acidogenicity of . . . PFOA” in human” and experimental animals, meaning that “[a] positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is credible.”
Location of PFAS Water Contamination
PFAS water contamination has been discovered across the U.S. As of October 2021, 2,854 locations in the United States were confirmed as known PFAS water contamination sites. PFAS contamination has been found not only in groundwater sources but also in numerous municipal water supply systems. PFAS has contaminated municipal water systems in 33 states and groundwater in 38 states. An estimated 16 million people have been exposed to drinking water contaminated with PFAS.
The most common locations for PFAS water contamination are near military bases, industrial sites, and airports. Firefighting foam has been used in training exercises at U.S. military bases and commercial airports for decades. This foam eventually made its way into the water systems. A 2020 Department of Defense report identified 600 military sites and surrounding areas with PFAS water contamination.
DOD Report Shows Widespread PFAS Water Contamination at Military Bases
As you can see from this image, there is no question that water contamination on and near military bases is a problem. Last week, the Department of Defense released a report detailing the results of a testing program to evaluate the quality of water supply at and near U.S. military bases in seven states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Montana, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Virginia). The testing was performed on drinking water samples for off-base locations adjacent to or “down gradient” from military bases or facilities.
The DOD water testing report reveals that the drinking water in many of these off-base locations is highly contaminated with PFAS. Testing near seven military installations found that the water supply had PFAS well over 70 parts per billion, the maximum safe level set by the EPA. The PFAS contamination at these locations is primarily the result of training operations using firefighting foam containing PFAS.
The seven specific military sites named in the DOD report as having water supply PFAS levels over 70 ppb included the Willow Grove Naval Air Station in Pennsylvania, the Camp Grayling Army Airfield in Michigan, and the Naval Air Station at Whidbey Island in Washington. PFAS have been found in the water supply at almost 400 military bases around the country, and environmental activist groups say that contamination is suspected, but not confirmed, at hundreds of additional sites.
PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuits
Over the last several years, a growing number of lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of PFAS and products containing PFAS. These lawsuits have been filed both by local municipalities alleging that their water systems were polluted and by individuals who claim that they developed cancer or other health conditions from drinking contaminated water.
The defendants in these PFAS water contamination lawsuits include many large chemical manufacturers and other industrial companies. Some of the most prominent companies named primary defendants in the PFAS water contamination lawsuits include 3M & Co. and DuPont. 3M manufactured and sold AFFF firefighting foam containing PFAS from 1970 to 2012. DuPont and its corporate spin-offs have manufactured PFAS and supplied them to other companies, like 3M, since the 1940s.
In addition to the PFAS lawsuits being filed by municipalities, thousands of individuals have filed their own PFAS water contamination lawsuits. These lawsuits allege that the plaintiffs consumed drinking water contaminated by PFAS and developed cancer and other adverse health conditions as a result of this exposure to PFAS in their water supply.
Our la””ers are looking at PFAS lawsuits with the following injuries diagnosed after January 1, 2000
- Bladder Cancer
- Pancreatic Cancer
- Kidney Cancer
- Testicular Cancer
- Kidney Cancer
- Ulcerative Colitis
Our attorneys are also focused on specific geographic regions for a PFAS lawsuit:
- Michigan
- New Jersey
- California (20 miles from San Jose or East Los Angeles)
- Ohio (20 miles from Cleveland)
- Colorado (20 miles from Denver or Colorado Springs)
- Minnesota (20 miles of Minneapolis)
Norfolk PFAS Water Contamination
The water in Norfolk is a growing concern. Our water contamination lawyers’ investigation specifically targets key areas within the city known for potential PFAS contributions:
- Naval Station Norfolk: As the world’s largest naval station, significant attention is directed towards the use and disposal of PFAS-containing materials, primarily firefighting foams used in training and emergency responses. Concerns revolve around how these substances have infiltrated local water systems through runoff and groundwater seepage.
- Norfolk Industrial Sector: Concentrated along the Elizabeth River, this sector includes manufacturing and chemical processing plants with histories of PFAS usage in various applications. The focus is on how waste handling and emissions from these facilities contribute to PFAS levels in nearby water bodies.
- Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Investigations are examining the effectiveness of Norfolk’s wastewater treatment in removing PFAS before discharging into waterways. This includes assessing the uptake and retention of PFAS in sewage sludge, which might be applied as fertilizer or disposed of in landfills, potentially reintroducing PFAS into the environment.
- Residential Areas: Given the widespread use of PFAS in consumer products, the investigation also encompasses residential contributions through domestic waste, focusing on urban runoff and leaching into municipal water systems.
Harford County PFAS Water Contamination
Hartford County, a rural and quiet Maryland county, is drawing increasing concern for its drinking water. There are many known sources of PFAS:
The Harford County PFAS Water Contamination Investigation zeroes in on specific areas and sources within the county that are potential hotspots for PFAS contamination:
- Aberdeen Proving Ground: A key focus is on this military installation due to its historical use of PFAS-containing firefighting foams. The investigation scrutinizes how these chemicals have migrated from training sites into the local aquifers and surface waters, posing risks to both the environment and public health.
- Industrial Facilities in the Greater Edgewood Area: This region hosts several facilities engaged in chemical manufacturing and processing that historically utilized PFAS. The detailed inquiry assesses how improper disposal or leaks may have contributed to the elevated PFAS levels found in nearby streams and drinking water sources.
- Municipal Water Systems and Treatment Plants: Special attention is given to the systems handling the county’s drinking water, particularly in how they manage, treat, and monitor water for PFAS contamination. The effectiveness of current filtration systems to remove PFAS is being evaluated, alongside potential upgrades to meet safety standards.
- Landfills and Waste Management Sites: The investigation also covers landfills where industrial and municipal waste might have introduced PFAS into the groundwater. This involves examining historical waste disposal practices and current leachate management systems to prevent further contamination.
By pinpointing these specific areas of concern, Harford County aims to not only map the extent of PFAS contamination but also develop targeted remediation strategies. The ultimate goal is to reduce PFAS levels within the water supply to safe limits, ensuring public health protection and compliance with environmental regulations.
Maryland PFAS Water Contamination Investigation
Maryland is becoming a hotbed for concern about water contamination. The focus includes:
- Aberdeen Proving Ground: Known for military testing and training activities that have historically included the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foams. This Hartford County site is under investigation for its impact on the surrounding water bodies and groundwater systems.
- Patuxent River Naval Air Station: Another military site where PFAS use in training exercises and emergency response scenarios has led to concerns about leaching into local water supplies.
- Edgewood Area Landfills: Given the proximity to industrial zones, local landfills are being scrutinized for their role in PFAS contamination. Waste from industrial processes known to contain PFAS might have been disposed of here, posing a risk of leaching into groundwater.
- Baltimore Industrial Area: This region hosts a range of manufacturing facilities, including chemical plants and textile manufacturers, that have used PFAS in their production processes. Investigations are concentrated on how waste management practices at these plants may have contributed to water contamination.
- Belcamp and Riverside Areas: These areas are home to various industrial facilities that have engaged in activities likely to involve PFAS, including electronics manufacturing and chemical processing. Investigations are aimed at assessing the extent of industrial contributions to PFAS levels in the local water systems.
- Curtis Bay: Known for its concentration of industrial operations, including waste treatment and processing facilities that may have handled PFAS materials, leading to potential groundwater and Chesapeake Bay contamination.
- Hagerstown Landfill: The landfill is scrutinized due to the disposal of industrial waste containing PFAS, which could leach into the groundwater affecting the local community’s water sources.
PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuit Updates & Legal Developments
1940s
PFAS Chemicals First Developed
3M and DuPont begin developing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances for military and industrial use. The chemicals quickly gain popularity due to their heat, water, grease-resistant properties—and how cheap they are.
1960s
Firefighting Foam (AFFF) Introduced
The U.S. Navy and 3M develop aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a firefighting foam that contains PFAS. This product is widely used at military bases and airports, unknowingly contaminating groundwater for decades and exposing firefighters to cancer-causing chemicals.
1970s
PFAS Found in Human Blood
Internal company studies confirm PFAS chemicals accumulate in human blood. Despite this growing understanding that would famously label these “forever chemicals”, production continues, leading to long-term environmental contamination.
1998
EPA Receives First Warning About PFAS
3M notifies the EPA of the now obvious: PFAS chemicals are toxic and bioaccumulative. The agency begins to assess the risks but takes no immediate regulatory action.
2001
First Major PFAS Lawsuit Filed
A class action lawsuit against DuPont alleges that PFAS-contaminated drinking water in Parkersburg, West Virginia, has caused severe health problems. This case, filed 24 years ago, becomes a major milestone in PFAS litigation.
2016
EPA Issues PFAS Health Advisory
The EPA sets a health advisory limit for PFAS at 70 parts per trillion (ppt) in drinking water. But the regulation has no teeth: no enforceable regulations are implemented, and contamination continues across the U.S.
2020
First Nationwide PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuit MDL
The PFAS class action lawsuit MDL (MDL No. 2873) is formed, consolidating hundreds of contaminated water lawsuits. This allows for streamlined pretrial proceedings for PFAS water contamination lawsuit claims in hope of this MDL being a smooth path to a global PFAS settlement.
2023
3M & DuPont Settle for $10.3 Billion
3M and DuPont agree to a historic $10.3 billion PFAS lawsuit settlement for public water systems contaminated with PFAS. What prompted them to off this settlement? A looming trial date which is exactly what we think will trigger a settlement in the personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits.
February 2024
EPA Sets First Enforceable PFAS Limits
The EPA announces new federal drinking water standards, limiting PFAS to 4 ppt, finally making these regulations enforceable. This decision strengthens PFAS drinking water lawsuits.
January 2025
New PFAS Cancer Study Links Exposure to Increased Risk
A new study links PFAS tap water contamination to increased risks of kidney, thyroid, and pancreatic cancers. The findings bolster PFAS kidney cancer lawsuits and PFAS thyroid lawsuit claims.
February 2025
First Bellwether Trials Scheduled
The first PFAS personal injury lawsuit trials are set for late 2025. These cases will be critical in determining future PFAS lawsuit settlements and compensation for victims.But our lawyers’ thinking is that we will see a global settlement before any of these lawsuits go to trial. The defendants wisely backed down on the municipality lawsuits and this will likely be the same scenario with most firefighter and individual water contamination lawsuits.
Estimated Settlement Value of PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuits
The PFAS water contamination lawsuits will likely be resolved in a global settlement. In these settlements, the defendants pay a large sum of money to resolve all pending cases. The amount of settlement money that individual plaintiffs receive is based on a tiered system in which plaintiffs are ranked based on specific criteria (severity of injuries, the strength of claim, etc.).
In the PFAS water contamination lawsuits, plaintiffs in the top settlement tier will be those with long-term exposure and a diagnosis of severe, advanced-stage cancers that have been closely linked to PFAS. These would include kidney, prostate, and testicular cancer. Second-tier plaintiffs will be those with less severe health conditions.
Based on global settlements in previous mass tort cases involving similar claims, we estimate that top-tier PFAS water contamination lawsuits could have a settlement amounts of around $150,000 to $375,000. Second-tier cases may have a value range of $75,000 to $180,000.
Getting a PFAS Water Contamination Lawyer
Our law firm represents contaminated drinking water victims on a contingency fee basis. For you, there is no out-of-pocket cost or risk for you to hire a lawyer to fight for you. Our PFAS attorneys receive no fees or expenses unless a financial recovery is obtained.
Call our PFAS lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or get a no-obligation free consultation online.