AFFF Lawsuit | AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

DuPont has agreed to pay $27 million to settle claims tied to the contamination of drinking water in Hoosick Falls, New York, where residents alleged their water was tainted with PFOA—a toxic chemical linked to firefighting foam and Teflon production.

The legal action, initiated in 2016, centered on a Teflon coating plant operated by Saint-Gobain and Honeywell. DuPont, as the manufacturer of Teflon materials, and 3M, which supplied the PFOA chemical, were later brought into the case. Plaintiffs claimed that the companies’ activities caused dangerous levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) to leach into the local water system.

As part of the agreement, DuPont will also contribute an additional $6 million toward medical monitoring for individuals exposed to the chemical. This brings the total compensation recovered in the case to over $90 million. In 2021, other defendants—Saint-Gobain, Honeywell, and 3M—reached a combined settlement of $65 million.

PFOA, a persistent chemical used in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) and various industrial applications, has been linked to several health concerns, including kidney and testicular cancer.

The Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) has surged to 11,096 active cases as of July 1, 2025—an increase of 705 new filings in just the past month.

This marks one of the largest monthly spikes since the MDL was formed in 2018.

The sudden rise in activity may point to a shift in strategy, as plaintiffs’ attorneys across the country appear to be accelerating filings—possibly in anticipation of upcoming settlement discussions.

The question now looming over the litigation: does this influx signal that a global settlement could be on the horizon?

The AFFF MDL is being overseen by Judge Richard Gergel in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The lawsuits allege that exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals found in firefighting foam has led to cancer, other serious health problems, and environmental damage in communities nationwide.

Although no settlement has been officially announced, the recent spike in case volume reflects an increased sense of urgency among plaintiffs’ firms aiming to ensure their clients are included in any potential resolution.

This growing momentum may indicate that a turning point in the litigation is approaching.

As of July 1, 2025, the AFFF firefighting foam multidistrict litigation (MDL) has reached 10,520 total cases, up from 10,391 in June.

This steady growth underscores the continued rise in PFAS-related exposure claims linked to AFFF use.

Plaintiffs include firefighters, military personnel, and airport workers who allege long-term health complications—such as cancer—resulting from toxic chemical exposure.

The court is advancing the bellwether selection process, with case-specific discovery underway to help determine which claims will proceed to trial first.

Settlement discussions are ongoing with select defendants, though no overarching agreement has been reached.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact Tru Law using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel is encouraging the parties involved in the Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) multidistrict litigation (MDL) to reach a settlement prior to the first personal injury bellwether trial, currently set for October 20.

The upcoming trial centers on a plaintiff who claims that exposure to PFAS chemicals in drinking water contaminated by AFFF led to the development of kidney cancer.

Plaintiffs had sought to add testicular cancer allegations to the case, but Judge Gergel denied the request, citing concerns that it could confuse the jury.

This trial will be the first personal injury case to move forward in the AFFF MDL, which until now has primarily dealt with public water system contamination claims.

A pre-trial settlement would represent a significant milestone in resolving claims brought by individuals alleging harm from PFAS exposure.

A new study published June 6 in the Journal of Environmental Sciences raises serious concerns about the impact of PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam on cancer progression and chemotherapy outcomes.

Researchers from the Medical University of Gdańsk found that two widely used PFAS compounds—PFOA and PFOS—accelerated prostate cancer cell growth at low exposure levels.

These chemicals also interfered with common prostate cancer treatments like cabazitaxel and docetaxel, altering their effectiveness depending on the cancer cell type.

In some cases, PFOS made chemotherapy more toxic to cancer cells, while in others, it reduced drug effectiveness.

PFOA similarly affected the performance of cabazitaxel, complicating efforts to predict treatment outcomes.

Alarmingly, even normal prostate cells showed high sensitivity to PFAS, reacting negatively at lower doses than cancer cells.

These findings could have major implications for lawsuits involving AFFF firefighting foam and PFAS-related cancer claims.

A new University of Arizona Health Sciences study confirms that firefighters continue to have the highest levels of toxic PFAS chemicals in their blood, reinforcing long-standing concerns about AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) and PFAS-treated turnout gear.

The study, part of the AZ HEROES project, analyzed nearly 2,000 essential workers—making it the first large-scale comparison of PFAS exposure across different professions.

Firefighters showed significantly elevated levels of PFHxS, PFOS variants, and PFHpS—PFAS compounds closely tied to firefighting materials.

Notably, the study also found that healthcare workers had elevated PFAS levels, especially PFHpS and PFUnA, with increased odds of having Sb-PFOA and PFDoA in their systems.

Researchers believe this may be linked to prolonged exposure to medical gowns, masks, and other protective equipment.

These findings further validate claims raised in AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits and may have

implications for expanding occupational PFAS litigation to include healthcare professionals.

Rhode Island lawmakers are poised to approve two key bills designed to reduce exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals.

One bill would ban the sale and distribution of firefighter turnout gear containing intentionally added PFAS, with the ban taking effect on January 1, 2027.

Previously delayed due to limited alternatives, the legislation has gained momentum now that PFAS-free gear is available.

Firefighter advocates stress the urgency, pointing to studies showing that every layer of traditional gear contains PFAS, which breaks down and increases long-term health risks.

A second bill addresses PFAS contamination in biosolids—sludge from wastewater treatment—by requiring mandatory testing before land application.

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management would have authority to reject biosolids deemed a public or environmental hazard due to PFAS levels.

Both bills have cleared critical committees and are expected to pass before the legislative session ends.

These legislative efforts reflect growing concerns over PFAS exposure for firefighters and residents living near wastewater treatment and disposal sites.

A new study examining nearly 2,000 emergency workers between July 2020 and April 2023 found that firefighters carried the highest and most persistent levels of PFAS in their blood—particularly PFHxS, PFOS, and PFHpS.

Unlike healthcare workers and other first responders, whose PFAS levels declined over time, firefighters’ levels remained elevated throughout the study period.

Researchers point to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) as a primary source of this continued exposure.

Used in fire suppression for decades, AFFF contains toxic PFAS chemicals now linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and other serious health conditions.

Firefighters and attorneys allege that long-term exposure to both AFFF and PFAS-treated turnout gear has contributed to severe illness.

These findings add urgency to ongoing efforts to eliminate PFAS from fire service equipment and reinforce the legal claims of those pursuing AFFF lawsuits.

The AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit continues to grow, with 1,049 new cases added to the MDL in the past month.

As of now, 10,391 total cases have been filed—marking an increase of 2,758 filings since January 1, 2025.

These claims are being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The first bellwether trial, focused on kidney and testicular cancer, is set to begin on October 6, 2025.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

Plaintiffs in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL) are urging Judge Richard Gergel to prioritize three kidney cancer cases for the first round of bellwether trials, scheduled to begin on October 20, 2025.

This request comes as the court evaluates how to structure the initial phase of trials in a massive MDL involving over 9,000 claims tied to PFAS-contaminated drinking water.

In a letter dated May 16, plaintiffs proposed beginning with the case of Donnelly, followed by those of Clinton Speers and Kevin Voelker.

All three men developed kidney cancer after consuming water from the same source in Pennsylvania—making their cases, according to plaintiffs, strong examples of direct causation with minimal complicating health factors.

For instance, Donnelly reportedly had only mild obesity and no other significant medical history, underscoring the alleged link between PFAS exposure and the development of kidney cancer.

The plaintiffs assert that trying these three cases first would align with the court’s earlier directive to avoid initial trials with distracting or confounding background issues.

They argue this strategy would offer juries a straightforward look at how exposure to AFFF chemicals in drinking water can lead to serious health outcomes like kidney cancer.

In the event the court decides against full consolidation with related testicular cancer claims, plaintiffs have also requested that the three kidney cancer cases be tried together to maintain focus and efficiency.

However, defendants oppose any form of consolidation and have instead pushed for Voelker’s case to be tried first as a standalone.

As of now, Judge Gergel has not ruled on how the initial bellwether trials will be structured.

The outcome of this decision will play a critical role in shaping the trajectory of the broader AFFF litigation.

With cancer remaining the leading cause of death among firefighters, Connecticut lawmakers are pushing forward with new initiatives aimed at reducing PFAS exposure through safer protective gear.

House Bill 7120 proposes $3 million in state funding to help fire departments replace turnout gear containing PFAS and to support cancer screening and treatment programs for firefighters.

PFAS—short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and often called “forever chemicals”—are widely used in firefighting foam and protective gear due to their water- and heat-resistant properties.

However, mounting research has linked these chemicals to cancer and other severe health conditions.

According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, all three layers of standard turnout gear are embedded with PFAS, meaning firefighters face toxic exposure during each use.

Although Connecticut banned PFAS-based firefighting foam in 2021, many departments continue to use gear that contains these harmful substances.

The cost of PFAS-free alternatives—approximately $4,000 per set—has been a significant barrier.

Additionally, some fire departments have raised concerns about the performance of PFAS-free gear, noting issues such as reduced durability, increased heat stress, and greater risk of cardiac strain during emergency responses.

House Bill 7120 seeks to address these challenges by offering financial assistance to departments transitioning to PFAS-free gear, reimbursing early adopters, and funding cancer prevention and detection efforts.

The bill complements Senate Bill 292, which will ban the sale of PFAS-containing products in Connecticut starting in 2028.

This legislative action reflects growing public health concerns that echo the core issues in the ongoing AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits.

Firefighters and communities across the country are pursuing legal action, alleging that prolonged PFAS exposure has resulted in serious health consequences, including cancer.

On May 22, Governor Tina Kotek signed Senate Bill 91 into law, officially making Oregon the 16th state to ban the use of PFAS-based firefighting foam in most circumstances.

This new legislation significantly limits the use of these hazardous chemicals, allowing exceptions only where federal regulations require them—such as at airports.

PFAS, commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily in the body or environment, have been linked to serious health risks including cancer, hormone disruption, and weakened immune function.

These risks are at the heart of the ongoing AFFF firefighting foam litigation, where firefighters and affected communities allege that long-term exposure to PFAS has led to major health problems and environmental damage.

The passage of Senate Bill 91 is being celebrated as a major public health achievement, especially for firefighters who are disproportionately exposed to PFAS and face increased cancer risks as a result.

Environmental and consumer advocacy organizations, including OSPIRG and Environment Oregon, applauded the move as a vital measure to safeguard both human health and Oregon’s natural ecosystems.

The federal judge presiding over the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL) has ruled that the first bellwether personal injury trial will focus solely on kidney cancer claims.

This decision excludes testicular cancer allegations to keep the trial streamlined and avoid jury confusion.

Scheduled to begin on October 20, 2025, the trial may feature up to three plaintiffs, though the court has not yet decided whether the cases will be tried jointly or separately.

While plaintiffs originally pushed to include five cases involving both kidney and testicular cancer, the court sided with the defense’s proposal to limit the scope.

The court has now directed plaintiffs to rank their top three cases if only one is selected to proceed.

Currently, nearly 10,000 personal injury lawsuits are pending in the AFFF MDL, many of them linked to communities like Horsham and Warminster, Pennsylvania, where PFAS exposure from military bases has contaminated drinking water.

Major defendants include 3M, DuPont, BASF/Ciba, and Arkema.

This phase of the litigation requires detailed presentation of medical evidence and expert testimony, differentiating it from earlier water contamination settlements.

A Science Day is scheduled for June 20, 2025, where experts will present research linking PFAS exposure to cancer.

The court will revisit the question of case consolidation following rulings on Daubert and summary judgment motions later this summer.

The AFFF Lawsuit continues to gain momentum as more than 400 new cases were added to the multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the past month alone.

This surge in filings makes AFFF one of the most active mass tort dockets in the country.

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed directly into the MDL, while many more have been transferred from courts across the U.S.

The increase reflects growing legal coordination and pressure on manufacturers to resolve claims alleging that aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) exposure led to cancer and other health issues.

Although no settlement has been announced, legal experts believe negotiations may be underway.

AFFF Lawyers expect that progress toward a resolution could be revealed as early as this summer.

With trial preparation advancing and discovery underway, a settlement framework may soon take shape for thousands of affected plaintiffs, including military personnel and firefighters.

The AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit continues to grow steadily as more individuals come forward with claims tied to PFAS exposure.

AFFF, widely used by firefighters and military personnel, contains toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS—substances linked to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and other serious health problems.

Plaintiffs allege that manufacturers knowingly failed to warn users about these health risks, despite mounting evidence of PFAS toxicity.

In the last month alone, 414 new cases were added to the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL), bringing the total number of new filings in 2025 to 1,709.

The lawsuits are centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The first bellwether trial is scheduled for October 6, 2025, and will focus on claims involving kidney and testicular cancer.

These early trials will help shape the trajectory of future settlements and compensation for those harmed by AFFF exposure.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is moving forward with efforts to phase out aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a firefighting product containing harmful PFAS chemicals linked to cancer, liver disease, immune system damage, and thyroid problems.

Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, the DOD was initially required to end the use of AFFF by October 2024.

However, due to challenges in finding fully effective replacements, the deadline has been extended to 2026 for certain applications.

While PFAS-free alternatives are available, they often present operational limitations, such as reduced temperature tolerance and the need for immediate mixing with water before deployment—unlike AFFF, which comes pre-mixed for emergencies.

The transition is expected to cost over $2.1 billion, covering system upgrades, firefighter training, and new equipment purchases.

In response to ongoing concerns, several states have launched take-back programs to collect and safely dispose of AFFF, collecting more than 553,000 gallons to date.

North Carolina alone has invested $20 million to collect 120,000 gallons, highlighting the scale and financial burden of this cleanup effort.

Some states are offering financial incentives to help fire departments transition to safer, PFAS-free alternatives.

These initiatives reflect growing momentum to reduce PFAS exposure and limit its devastating impact on public health.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

Brunswick Landing has successfully removed nearly 1,000 gallons of toxic aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) from one of its airport hangars, marking a major milestone in Maine’s efforts to eliminate firefighting products contaminated with PFAS.

The Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority (MRRA) confirmed that Hangar 6, which had contained 975 gallons of AFFF containing the harmful chemical PFOS, has now been decommissioned and updated with a fire suppression system free of PFAS.

This action follows a significant 2023 spill at nearby Hangar 4, where a malfunction released 1,450 gallons of AFFF mixed with 50,000 gallons of water.

The incident prompted statewide alarm and increased scrutiny over the storage and disposal of AFFF.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is now collaborating with MRRA to develop safe methods for destroying the foam concentrate.

Environmental groups remain cautious, but MRRA’s executive director described the cleanup as a “proactive approach” to addressing the ongoing PFAS risks.

These efforts at Brunswick Landing come as national litigation continues over AFFF exposure, with thousands of claims linked to the foam’s role in cancer and water contamination.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF firefighting foam litigation saw a substantial rise in case filings between March and April 2025.

In March, 8,430 total cases were filed, including 338 new entries into the multidistrict litigation (MDL).

By April, that number increased to 8,928—an addition of 498 new cases.

This growth reflects continued momentum in the legal battle over AFFF exposure, particularly among individuals stationed at or living near military bases.

Plaintiffs allege that long-term exposure to PFAS chemicals in AFFF has caused serious health issues, including cancer, prompting a surge in claims against foam manufacturers.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF Lawsuit is moving forward, with bellwether trials scheduled to evaluate personal injury claims related to PFAS exposure in firefighting foam litigation.

The first bellwether trial is set for October 6, 2025, focusing on kidney cancer and testicular cancer claims. The trial will help determine how juries respond to key evidence, shaping potential settlements and guiding future proceedings.

Expansion of Accepted Injuries

Initially, the AFFF MDL primarily included kidney cancer and testicular cancer claims.

However, the court has expanded the litigation to include additional health conditions linked to PFAS exposure, including:

• Thyroid Cancer: Lawsuits allege that AFFF exposure contributed to the development of thyroid cancer in firefighters and military personnel.
• Liver Cancer: The court is now considering claims asserting that PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam caused liver cancer in exposed individuals.

As litigation progresses, these bellwether trials will play a critical role in determining the potential for AFFF settlements and compensation for affected plaintiffs.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF Lawsuit involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), used by firefighters and military personnel, contains PFAS “forever chemicals” linked to cancer and other serious health risks.

Plaintiffs claim that manufacturers failed to warn users about these dangers, causing widespread harm.

In February, 8,092 cases were pending in the AFFF MDL, a number that increased to 8,430 in March with 338 new claims added.

This ongoing rise reflects heightened awareness and legal action from those impacted by PFAS exposure.

Most AFFF cases are being litigated in the U.S. District Court – Southern Carolina (MDL), where bellwether trials are scheduled.

The first trial, addressing kidney and testicular cancer claims, is set for October 6, 2025, with other injury claims following a separate timeline.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing. 

The federal court overseeing AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits is expanding its review of potential health risks, now examining claims related to liver cancer and thyroid cancer.

The judge presiding over the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL) has requested that attorneys submit proposals by February 21 outlining deadlines for expert reports, depositions, and scientific challenges regarding these newly reviewed conditions.

The court has also scheduled a “Science Day” for June 6, 2025, where both plaintiffs and defendants will present scientific evidence on the link between AFFF exposure and liver and thyroid cancer.

This session aims to educate the court on the complex medical and environmental issues central to the litigation.

This development follows the initial round of bellwether trials, which focus on kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis.

While these early trials do not establish binding precedent, their outcomes will likely influence future AFFF settlements and compensation for thousands of plaintiffs.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF Firefighting Foam lawsuit centers on allegations that aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used by firefighters and military personnel, contains PFAS “forever chemicals” associated with cancer and other serious health conditions.

Plaintiffs argue that manufacturers failed to warn users about these risks, resulting in significant harm.

At the beginning of the year, 7,633 cases were pending in the AFFF MDL, a number that grew to 8,092 by February, with 459 new claims filed.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

A recent study from the University at Buffalo sheds light on concerning revelations regarding PFAS, the “forever chemicals” found in AFFF firefighting foam.

Researchers found that PFAS can penetrate the blood-brain barrier, accumulate in brain tissue, and interfere with essential genes responsible for brain health.

The study highlighted 11 genes impacted by PFAS exposure, including one that safeguards neuronal cells but gets suppressed, and another linked to cell death that becomes excessively active.

These findings, along with PFAS’s potential to alter hundreds of other genes based on their chemical structure, underscore the complexity of their neurotoxic effects.

Given the ongoing litigation over PFAS exposure from firefighting foam, this new evidence could strengthen the cases of individuals claiming health damages from PFAS contamination in water supplies near military bases and airports.

As researchers continue to explore PFAS’s effects, these findings may influence future regulations and legal accountability.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expanded its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) by adding nine new PFAS compounds, further increasing federal oversight of these hazardous “forever chemicals.”

This addition directly affects industries and facilities that manufacture, process, or use PFAS, including those linked to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a firefighting foam long associated with environmental contamination.

The newly listed PFAS compounds include:

• Ammonium perfluorodecanoate (PFDA NH4)
• Sodium perfluorodecanoate (PFDA-Na)
• Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid
• 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate acid
• 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate anion
• 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate potassium salt
• 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate ammonium salt
• 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate sodium salt
• Acetic acid, [(γ-ω-perfluoro-C8-10-alkyl)thio] derivs., Bu esters

Facilities using these chemicals must now report annually if specific thresholds are met.

These reports will enhance transparency, helping communities identify potential exposure risks, particularly in areas affected by AFFF spills or usage.

The data will also support regulatory actions and remediation planning.

Facilities are required to track these PFAS immediately, with reporting forms due to the EPA by July 2026.

This development highlights AFFF’s role in groundwater contamination and underscores the push for accountability and safer firefighting alternatives.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact Trulaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

Firefighting foam containing PFAS, often called “forever chemicals,” is a critical concern due to its environmental persistence and links to cancer and other severe health issues.

AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) was initially developed for military and airport use but has been widely deployed for decades despite mounting evidence of its harmful impacts.

The AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL), consolidated in the US District Court for the District of South Carolina, continues to grow.

In December 2024, 7,370 cases were pending, increasing to 7,633 by January 2025, reflecting 263 new claims in a single month.

Significant updates regarding AFFF include:

• Environmental Contamination: AFFF use at fire training sites, airports, and military bases has caused widespread groundwater and drinking water contamination. States like Maine face high remediation costs due to PFAS’s resistance to degradation and its accumulation in ecosystems and human bodies.
• Health Risks for Firefighters: Research links AFFF exposure to elevated cancer risks among firefighters, with occupational cancer accounting for 72% of firefighter line-of-duty deaths. Many feel trapped by health issues caused by exposure.
• Transition Challenges: Replacing AFFF with fluorine-free alternatives poses logistical and financial challenges. Fire departments must decontaminate equipment, safely dispose of old stocks, and ensure new foams meet safety standards.
• State Responses: States like Maine are considering laws to mandate AFFF inventories and fund takeback programs. Colorado has already implemented mechanisms to assist municipalities in transitioning away from PFAS-based foams.
• Legal Action: Maine has joined lawsuits against chemical manufacturers such as 3M and DuPont, seeking compensation for PFAS-related damages. With over 10,000 cases consolidated in the MDL, settlements could support cleanup and remediation nationwide.

Rising awareness of AFFF’s dangers has increased demands for stricter regulations, expanded remediation funding, and stronger support for affected communities and firefighters.

Transitioning to safer alternatives and effective PFAS management remains a pressing priority.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF Firefighting Foam lawsuit involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) contains PFAS “forever chemicals” linked to cancer and other serious health conditions.

Plaintiffs claim manufacturers failed to warn about these risks, resulting in widespread harm.

Case filings rose from 7,150 in November to 7,370 in December, with 220 new claims added.

Most AFFF cases are being handled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of South Carolina (MDL).

Bellwether trials are set to begin on October 6, 2025, with the first case focusing on kidney or testicular cancer.

Trial dates for other injuries remain pending.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF lawsuit continues as efforts intensify to tackle contamination caused by aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), which contains toxic PFAS chemicals.

Lawmakers are pushing for stronger monitoring and prevention measures at military installations.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has identified over 1,500 facilities using AFFF, with 700 confirmed as sites of significant PFAS contamination.

Health Risks and Legislative Efforts

PFAS, often called “forever chemicals,” are associated with severe health problems, including cancer, reproductive issues, and immune system disorders.

Military facilities are a major source of PFAS contamination, polluting nearby drinking water supplies.

Bipartisan lawmakers are advocating for Section 319 of the DoD PFAS Discharge Prevention Act to be included in the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

This provision would:

• Require regular PFAS monitoring at military bases.
• Establish tailored management practices to reduce PFAS runoff and protect nearby communities.

Current Challenges

The 2020 mandate to phase out AFFF faces delays due to logistical challenges.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report emphasizes the need for faster progress and solutions to address ongoing contamination.

High-risk sites like Langley Air Force Base and Naval Air Station Oceana demonstrate the urgency of these measures.

New research reveals higher levels of branched perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a known carcinogen, in AFFF than previously thought.

Studies indicate these levels can double over time in the environment, raising serious concerns about their long-term persistence and toxicity.

Outlook

Momentum is building for stricter PFAS regulations.

Including Section 319 in the FY25 NDAA could significantly enhance efforts to reduce PFAS exposure, protect public health, and lower cleanup costs.

This legislation represents a critical step toward addressing the lasting impacts of AFFF contamination on military personnel, their families, and surrounding communities.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing. 

Indiana’s PFAS firefighting foam collection and disposal program, aimed at reducing firefighters’ exposure to these hazardous chemicals, is set to end on December 30.

This initiative, managed by the Indiana Department of Homeland Security (IDHS) with the Department of Environmental Management, reflects broader health efforts to limit exposure to “forever chemicals.”

Linked to immune disorders, developmental issues in children, and cancer — the leading cause of death among firefighters — PFAS-based foams are commonly used to fight Class B fires involving flammable liquids like gasoline.

The IDHS is urging Indiana fire departments to join the program before its December 1 deadline.

Financial limitations after the program ends may hinder further disposal efforts. PFAS chemicals, meanwhile, persist as a national concern, found in consumer products like non-stick cookware and fast-food wrappers.

Despite some recent regulatory actions from the EPA, thousands of PFAS compounds remain unregulated, posing an ongoing public health challenge.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.

The AFFF Firefighting Foam Litigation involves claims that aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), widely used by firefighters and military personnel, contains harmful PFAS “forever chemicals” linked to cancer and severe health conditions.

Plaintiffs argue that manufacturers failed to adequately warn users of these risks, resulting in significant health impacts.

In October, the total number of cases reached 9,896; however, by November, the case count saw a significant drop to 7,150—a reduction of 2,746 cases.

This decline is mainly attributed to consolidations or dismissals related to injuries that did not align with the bellwether injury list.

Most AFFF cases are centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of South Carolina (Charleston Division), where the MDL court has identified cases for the initial personal injury bellwether trial pool and outlined a scheduling order.

This timeline sets deadlines for depositions, expert discovery, dispositive motions, expert challenges, and pretrial proceedings.

The first trial is slated for October 6, 2025, featuring a plaintiff with kidney or testicular cancer.

Plaintiffs with other types of injuries are following a secondary schedule, with trial dates to be determined.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Fire Fighting Foam Lawsuit.

Carrier Global Corp has reached three settlement agreements totaling $615 million to resolve lawsuits concerning Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF).

These settlements are intended to address claims within the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, involving plaintiffs affected by contamination and health risks tied to the use of firefighting foam.

The agreement also resolves claims against Kidde-Fenwal (KFI), a former subsidiary of Carrier, which manufactured AFFF and is now in bankruptcy proceedings.

KFI has faced extensive litigation related to health conditions such as cancer and water contamination linked to chemicals in AFFF, particularly per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been associated with serious illnesses like kidney, bladder, and testicular cancer.

The $615 million settlement forms part of a wider effort by companies involved in AFFF litigation, such as 3M and DuPont, to address mounting legal and financial pressures from other contamination-related claims.

If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and developed cancer, contact an AFFF Lawyer from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation consultation to find out if you qualify for an AFFF Lawsuit. 

You can also use the chatbot on this page to check your eligibility instantly.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing. 

The AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit focuses on the harmful effects of exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly found in military-grade firefighting foam.

These “forever chemicals” are linked to numerous serious health issues due to their persistence in the environment and human body.

As of September 1st, 9,576 cases were filed in the AFFF MDL.

By October, that number rose to 9,896.

This surge highlights growing awareness of the dangers posed by PFAS exposure from AFFF, as more studies continue to link these chemicals to various cancers and debilitating illnesses.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is conducting an investigation to determine if kidney cancer can be linked to PFAS exposure.

The outcome of this investigation could designate kidney cancer as a presumptive service-connected condition, allowing veterans faster access to healthcare and benefits.

This study reflects increasing concerns about the association between PFAS exposure and cancer, particularly among veterans exposed to these chemicals during military service.

If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and developed cancer, contact an AFFF Lawyer from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation consultation to find out if you qualify for an AFFF Lawsuit. 

You can also use the chatbot on this page to check your eligibility instantly.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.

In recent developments in the Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) litigation, a group of firefighters has filed a lawsuit against major chemical companies, including 3M.

The lawsuit alleges severe health impacts due to long-term exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals in AFFF.

The 12 plaintiffs claim that their exposure to AFFF has led to serious health conditions, including prostate cancer, leukemia, and kidney cancer.

Despite decades of research highlighting the dangers of PFAS, the companies allegedly failed to provide adequate warnings or implement safety measures, continuing to distribute the foam without proper consent.

The plaintiffs seek medical monitoring, injunctive relief, and accountability for the harm caused by AFFF.

Meanwhile, in Brunswick, Maine, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) continues comprehensive testing following a major AFFF spill in August 2024.

Soil and water sampling has revealed PFAS contamination in local watersheds and marine environments, with elevated PFAS levels found in some soil samples.

While public water supplies remain safe, and no direct contamination has been found, the DEP has advised the public to avoid recreational activities in the affected areas.

Testing will continue, and further updates are expected as the cleanup progresses.

If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation consultation today to find out if you qualify for a firefighting foam lawsuit. 

You can also use the chatbot on this page to check your eligibility for legal action instantly.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing. 

The ongoing AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam) firefighting lawsuits have emerged as a major legal and environmental issue due to the presence of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), often called “forever chemicals.”

These chemicals, found in products like firefighting foam, have been linked to serious health risks, including cancer, and have contaminated water supplies in various locations.

Minnesota’s Regulatory Actions: For the first time, Minnesota is requiring 3M to limit PFAS discharge into the Mississippi River from its Cottage Grove plant.

This follows long-standing concerns about contamination of fish and water in the area.

The plant, which previously manufactured Scotchgard and now produces specialty tapes and chemicals, has a history of PFAS-related pollution issues, leading to drinking water contamination.

Despite 3M’s plans to end PFAS production by 2025 and build a $300 million water treatment system, the company is challenging the new permit requirements, claiming they are legally unjustified.

Contamination in Grand Prairie, Texas: A firefighting foam spilling Grand Prairie led to potential water contamination, affecting around 60,000 residents.

Although the foam used was said not to contain PFAS, residents were still advised to avoid using tap water due to a backflow issue, which temporarily forced businesses and schools to close.

Cape Fear River Study: A study by Cape Fear River Watch revealed fish tissue samples from the Northeast Cape Fear River contained PFOS levels 20 times higher than state standards.

PFOS, part of the PFAS family, has been linked to cancer and developmental defects.

Nearby Lear’s Textile Company, which uses PFAS in manufacturing, is now working with state regulators to phase out the chemicals.

If you or a loved one has developed cancer or other serious health conditions after exposure to PFAS-contaminated water, you may be eligible to file a PFAS water contamination lawsuit.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page for an instant case evaluation to determine if you qualify to join others filing in the PFAS water contamination lawsuit.

The AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit targets manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a product widely used by firefighters.

Recently, over 1,400 gallons of firefighting foam containing toxic PFAS, also called forever chemicals, spilled accidentally at an airplane hangar in Maine.

The spill occurred due to the unexpected discharge of an outdated fire suppression system at Hangar 4, located at Brunswick Executive Airport, flooding the hangar and surrounding areas with foam.

PFAS chemicals in the foam are linked to severe health risks.

The AFFF Lawsuit aims to secure compensation for individuals affected by exposure to these dangerous substances.

In August, there were 9,525 filings within the federal AFFF MDL, increasing to 9,576 by September 1st.

If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation legal consultation today and find out if you qualify for a firefighting foam lawsuit. 

You can also use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify for legal action instantly.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing. 

Over 1,600 gallons of firefighting foam containing harmful PFAS chemicals were accidentally discharged at the former Brunswick Naval Air Base, now operating as Brunswick Executive AIrport, due to a fire suppression system malfunction.

The foam, designed to extinguish jet fuel fires, entered the sewer and stormwater systems, leading to significant environmental contamination.

Nearby nature preserves were impacted, with foam reaching depths of four to eight feet in some ponds, according to Steve Walker from the Brunswick-Topsham Land Trust.

Cleanup efforts by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection are ongoing, but concerns remain about the long-term environmental impact, as these chemicals are known for their persistence in nature and links to serious health risks.

PFAS chemicals in AFFF are central to ongoing lawsuits, where plaintiffs seek compensation for health and environmental damages caused by these toxic substances.

The Brunswick spill could potentially contribute to the growing litigation surrounding PFAS contamination and its harmful effects on the environment and the people within it.

If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation legal consultation today and find out if you qualify for a firefighting foam lawsuit. 

You can also use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify for legal action instantly.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey recently signed a law mandating the phase-out of PFAS chemicals in firefighters’ protective gear, marking a significant development in the ongoing Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) litigation.

The new law, effective January 2025, requires manufacturers and sellers to disclose the presence of PFAS in firefighting equipment and justify its inclusion.

By 2027, the sale of protective gear containing intentionally-added PFAS will be prohibited.

PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are linked to serious health conditions, including various cancers.

Firefighters, who face a higher risk of developing cancer compared to the general population, have been particularly affected due to prolonged exposure to these chemicals in their gear and the use of AFFF in firefighting operations.

This legislation is likely to impact the ongoing AFFF lawsuits, which allege that PFAS exposure from firefighting foam and gear has caused significant health problems.

With Massachusetts enacting one of the nation’s strongest PFAS regulations, this law could set a precedent for similar actions in other states, potentially influencing the outcomes of AFFF-related litigation.

Firefighter unions and advocacy groups, such as the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), have long campaigned against the use of PFAS in firefighting equipment due to its role in causing occupational cancers.

This new law is a direct response to those concerns and reflects a growing recognition of the dangers.

If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation legal consultation today and find out if you qualify for the AFFF Lawsuit. 

You can also use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify to file an AFFF Lawsuit instantly.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.

States across the nation are intensifying efforts to address the dangers of PFAS chemicals in firefighting gear and foams.

PFAS are synthetic chemicals known for their resistance to breaking down in the environment and are linked to serious health risks, including liver and kidney damage, reproductive harm, and certain cancers.

The Massachusetts State Senate has passed a bill banning PFAS in firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE), set to take effect on January 1, 2027.

This legislation aims to remove PFAS from the protective gear worn by firefighters, addressing growing concerns about the health risks associated with prolonged exposure to these chemicals.

Firefighter unions are pushing for the state’s House of Representatives to expedite the bill’s passage and present it to Governor Healey before the legislative session ends.

In Alaska, a new law requires fire departments to stop using PFAS-containing firefighting foams by January 1, 2025.

The law, which took effect without the governor’s signature, mandates a shift to PFAS-free alternatives and creates a system for rural villages to dispose of existing PFAS foams, with the state providing financial reimbursement.

This legislation reflects years of advocacy by environmental and health organizations and marks a significant step in addressing PFAS contamination, especially in areas near airports and military bases where these foams have been heavily used.

Additionally, two more fire departments in Connecticut, Stamford and Old Mystic, have joined a federal lawsuit against 3M and DuPont.

The lawsuit claims that the companies’ turnout gear used by firefighters contains PFAS chemicals that pose cancer risks.

This legal action, which includes several other Connecticut departments and firefighter unions, may be the first of its kind in the nation, highlighting the growing legal challenges faced by manufacturers of PFAS-containing products.

Regarding the AFFF Firefighting Foam MDL, the litigation saw an increase of more than 300 cases in the past month.

As of August 1, 9,525 pending AFFF lawsuits were reported by the JPML.

The transition to PFAS-free foams is crucial for mitigating further environmental and health risks.

If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation legal consultation today and find out if you qualify for a firefighting foam lawsuit. 

You can also use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify for legal action instantly.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a transportation spending bill allocating $70 million to help airports transition to PFAS-free firefighting foams.

This funding is significantly higher than the House’s proposed $5 million. Congress must reconcile the differences between the two versions of the T-HUD Fiscal Year 2025 Appropriations Bill.

PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” persist in the environment and human body and are linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and immune system damage.

Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used in firefighting contains PFAS and can contaminate water supplies near airports.

Earlier this year, the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization law established a five-year, $350 million grant program to aid airports in transitioning away from PFAS-containing foams.

The Senate T-HUD bill fully funds the program’s first year at $70 million and allocates $4.52 billion for airport infrastructure and safety improvements, and emissions reductions.

PFAS-free firefighting foams have been available since 2019, with over 100 fluorine-free options from 24 manufacturers meeting international aviation standards.

These alternatives are safe, effective, and ready for adoption by the military and U.S. airports.

Decades of using PFAS-laden foams have contaminated drinking and groundwater near airports.

The transition to PFAS-free foams is crucial for mitigating further environmental and health risks.

If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation legal consultation today and find out if you qualify for a firefighting foam lawsuit.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing. 

The federal judge overseeing the Firefighting Foam MDL has selected nine cases involving Pennsylvania residents with kidney or testicular cancer and Colorado residents with thyroid cancer or ulcerative colitis to go to trial.

Other key developments in the AFFF Lawsuit include:

• The Plaintiffs’ strategy reduced the number of required depositions and expert reports.
• Lawyers are pushing for more trial dates to expedite settlements.
• The Air Force is transitioning to a fluorine-free formulation (F3) in response to the AFFF Lawsuit.
• The Department of Defense is said to be “behind” on its goal to phase out AFFF.

If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact TruLaw for a free, no-obligation consultation today and find out if you qualify for the AFFF Lawsuit. 

You can also use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify to file an AFFF Lawsuit instantly.

On June 25, 2024, a mechanical malfunction at the Alaska Army National Guard Aviation Facility in Bethel led to a release of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) containing PFAS chemicals.

Approximately ten gallons of AFFF were discharged due to a fire suppression system failure, affecting the facility’s boiler room, hangar bay floor, and a small area outside.

The Alaska National Guard environmental team is hiring a PFAS-trained contractor for sample testing and ongoing site monitoring.

The Seneca Army Depot, now a Superfund site, has known PFAS contamination in its groundwater from historical AFFF use.

Despite the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) request for PFAS testing in nearby creeks, the Army has not planned immediate testing, opting to sample off-base receptors only if PFAS migration is observed.

Following consultations with the Army, the EPA removed the testing request from its website but continues discussions on PFAS remediation with the Army Corps of Engineers.

Seneca County has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging PFAS contamination from the depot has damaged its drinking water supply.

The lawsuit claims that decades of AFFF use at the depot have contaminated the water supply with PFAS compounds.

The Waterloo water plant’s 2023 report shows PFOA levels at 4.24 ppt, disputing the higher contamination levels cited in the lawsuit.

The plant is upgrading its filtering systems to address PFAS contamination, with costs expected to exceed $12 million.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF lawsuit is ongoing.

The Department of Defense (DOD) is actively working to eliminate the use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) at its installations due to the significant health risks posed by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) found in AFFF.

PFAS exposure has been linked to adverse health effects, including impacts on fetal development, the immune system, the thyroid, liver damage, and cancer.

Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, the DOD must discontinue the use of AFFF by October 1, 2024, with possible waivers extending to October 1, 2026, except for shipboard use.

The DOD has developed plans and schedules for replacing AFFF in all land-based mobile assets and facilities worldwide.

This includes creating specifications for a fluorine-free foam alternative to meet fire extinguishing performance standards.

However, the transition faces several challenges, including compatibility issues with existing firefighting systems, substantial funding requirements estimated at over $2.1 billion, and the need for extensive training for DOD firefighters in the use of fluorine-free foams.

Despite these obstacles, the DOD remains committed to phasing out AFFF and transitioning to safer alternatives.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF lawsuit is ongoing.

The AFFF lawsuit addresses claims related to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used in firefighting, which contains harmful chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

These chemicals are linked to severe health issues, including cancer.

In June, there were 8,270 AFFF lawsuit filings.

By July, this number increased to 9,198.

PFAS in AFFF persists in the environment and human body, causing long-term health problems such as cancer, liver damage, and immune system issues.

Firefighters and exposed communities are at significant risk, leading to more individuals joining the AFFF lawsuit.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The Firefighting Foam lawsuit is ongoing. 

Connecticut firefighters, represented by the Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut, filed a class action lawsuit against DuPont, 3M, Honeywell, and 16 other defendants.

The lawsuit claims that the protective gear used by firefighters was contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals,” which are linked to cancer.

The lawsuit, filed in the New Haven federal court, targets firefighter gear containing PFAS.

Plaintiffs, including five other unions and five individual firefighters, allege that PFAS in jackets, pants, and other turnout gear were absorbed through the skin, ingestion, and inhalation.

This absorption rate increases with rising temperatures and sweat buildup, leading to an increased risk of adverse health conditions.

The lawsuit demands at least $5 million in damages for violations of Connecticut product liability law.

DuPont and 3M produced the PFAS used in the gear, while a Honeywell subsidiary sold the gear without warning firefighters of the risks.

DuPont stated the lawsuit is without merit, while 3M indicated its intention to defend itself or settle as appropriate.

Honeywell did not respond to requests for comment.

PFAS, used in many products, are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily in the human body or the environment and have been linked to various health issues.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF lawsuit is ongoing.

A provisional $750 million settlement has been approved by a federal judge in South Carolina, involving Tyco Fire Products LP, a Johnson Controls International PLC subsidiary.

This settlement addresses claims from public water systems regarding PFAS contamination, which allegedly stems from Tyco’s aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) products used in firefighting.

This settlement is part of a broader multidistrict litigation (MDL) which includes substantial settlements, such as a $12.5 billion agreement with 3M Co. and a $1.2 billion agreement involving DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva.

The class eligible for this settlement consists of public water systems that had detected PFAS in their water sources by mid-May.

The MDL encompasses over 10,000 cases related to PFAS damage claims.

While this settlement resolves some issues, it does not conclude all claims within the larger AFFF litigation, leaving several categories of claims outstanding.

These unresolved claims include requests from public water providers for water testing and remediation, claims from individuals who have experienced health issues from AFFF exposure, requests for medical monitoring, property owners seeking contamination cleanup costs, and states claiming damages to natural resources.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF lawsuit is ongoing. 

In the AFFF lawsuit, plaintiffs claim significant harm from PFAS chemicals, historically used in firefighting foams by the US Military and various airports.

This past month, AFFF lawyers added 209 new cases to the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) related to the AFFF lawsuit, bringing the total to 8,270 pending cases as of June 1st.

PFAS, the toxic chemicals in AFFF, are linked to severe health risks including cancer, liver damage, and immune system disruption.

A key concern is the PFAS contamination of water sources, especially around US Military installations, due to AFFF usage.

Recent technological breakthroughs, such as Battelle’s “The Annihilator,” uses supercritical water oxidation, offering promising methods for destroying PFAS in contaminated sites and firefighting foams.

These advancements in remediation technology are essential for effectively eliminating PFAS from affected environments.

If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

The AFFF lawsuit is ongoing.

A significant $105 billion omnibus bill, now including $350 million for a grant program, aims to eliminate toxic AFFF foam at airports nationwide, including in New York.

The U.S. Senate has passed this bill, which is pending approval by the House. Its primary objective is to assist airports in replacing hazardous AFFF firefighting foam with safer alternatives.

The AFFF PFAS Replacement Program for Airports will allocate federal funding for airports to adopt PFAS-free foams, clean equipment, and conduct necessary training for personnel.

PFAS chemicals, often referred to as “forever chemicals,” are notorious for their persistence in the environment and their association with serious health issues such as cancer and thyroid disorders.

The Capital Region, and particularly Hoosick Falls, has faced significant AFFF PFAS pollution, prompting state-led investigations and subsequent settlements.

Following a 2023 ruling by the EPA, it has been established that no level of PFAS is considered safe in drinking water, leading to calls for strict regulatory limits.

Furthermore, the aviation legislation strengthens consumer rights, including enhanced refund policies for passengers on delayed flights.

In related developments, San Francisco is poised to be the first city to prohibit PFAS in firefighter gear, with a mandate for the San Francisco Fire Department to transition to PFAS-free uniforms by June 30, 2026.

The AFFF lawsuit is ongoing. 

The AFFF lawsuit emphasizes significant environmental and health risks tied to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) due to their persistent nature in the environment, often termed “forever chemicals.”

Key points of the AFFF lawsuit involve claims against 3M and other manufacturers for not disclosing the hazardous effects of PFAS, which research has connected to cancer and other severe health issues.

The Department of Defense initiated the use of PFAS-containing foams in the 1970s, primarily to extinguish oil and gas fires at military and airport locations.

ABC news reports revealed that it took decades to recognize the scale of PFAS water contamination, subsequently found widespread in public water systems across the United States.

Communities affected by PFAS number 5,000 across all 50 states, posing health risks to 60 million Americans.

The ongoing legal efforts demand that PFAS manufacturers finance the extensive clean-up operations required.

Proposed remedial measures include installing advanced water filtration systems to eliminate PFAS from contaminated water supplies, an essential yet expensive endeavor to protect public health.

Technological advancements in firefighting have introduced PFAS-free foams, with multiple new products claiming to be fluorine-free.

These products are capable of effectively extinguishing liquid fuel fires, despite requiring greater volumes under ideal conditions due to variations in “foam quality.”

TruLaw is actively seeking new clients for the AFFF lawsuit, focusing on individuals likely exposed to AFFF, including military service members, firefighters, and airport workers. 

If you or someone you know has been exposed to AFFF and suffered health consequences contact us for a free consultation.

Alternatively, use the chatbot on our page for an instant AFFF lawsuit evaluation. 

The AFFF lawsuit is ongoing. 

The multidistrict litigation (MDL) now includes over 300 new AFFF Lawsuits, bringing the total to 8,061 pending cases, as noted in the latest reports from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML).

Aqueous film-forming foam has been extensively employed in firefighting efforts, notably at both military and civilian airports.

Plaintiffs allege that exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through AFFF resulted in severe health consequences, including various forms of cancer.

Firefighters, military personnel, and airport workers are identified as the primary groups adversely affected by exposure to AFFF.

If you or a loved one has been exposed to AFFF, call us today for a free consultation.

Or use the chatbot on this page for an instant case evaluation.

Tyco Fire Products has reached a $750 million settlement in litigation concerning the contamination of public water systems by PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), found in firefighting foams.

PFAS chemicals are notorious for their environmental persistence and their potential to cause severe health issues, including cancer.

This settlement aligns with previous agreements involving companies like 3M and Dupont, highlighting the ongoing legal efforts to address the environmental and health dangers posed by these substances.

The deal, which is awaiting approval from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, is intended to fund improvements to water treatment infrastructure.

This settlement pertains specifically to public water systems affected by PFAS in firefighting foam.

Meanwhile, the broader AFFF lawsuit, addressing personal injuries and cancer claims, continues and remains unresolved.

Our law firm continues to take on new clients for the AFFF lawsuit.

For a free consultation, contact us or use the chatbot on this page to immediately find out if you are eligible to participate in the AFFF lawsuit.

The Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) litigation landscape is evolving rapidly.

The latest filings from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) indicating a total of 7,738 lawsuits pending consolidation as of April 1st.

This marks a notable increase from the 7,170 cases reported just a month earlier, on March 1st.

The surge in litigation activity is attributed primarily to increased awareness among affected individuals about their legal options for seeking compensation due to exposure to firefighting foam.

AFFF has been widely utilized across various military branches and by firefighting units for its effectiveness in extinguishing fuel-based fires.

Despite its utility, the foam’s chemical components, particularly Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), have come under scrutiny for potential adverse health effects.

The core of the ongoing lawsuits revolves around allegations that exposure to AFFF, and consequently PFAS, is associated with several serious health conditions.

Individuals with prolonged exposure to AFFF, notably firefighters and military personnel, are reportedly at higher risk and have been instrumental in bringing these issues to light.

For individuals who believe they have suffered health problems as a result of AFFF exposure, legal counsel is advised to explore possible compensation avenues.

Our law firm offers free consultations to evaluate potential cases related to AFFF exposure. 

Interested parties are encouraged to reach out through our website’s chatbot for immediate assistance or to arrange a consultation with our specialized AFFF attorneys.

The AFFF Lawsuit continues to progress, and our AFFF Lawyers are accepting clients from all 50 states. 

The focus of the AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) legal battle is currently on setting up a procedural structure to examine the scientific claims that the foam’s chemicals are linked to liver and thyroid cancer.

A pivotal event in this phase is the “Science Day,” scheduled to brief the MDL (Multidistrict Litigation) judge on pertinent scientific and medical evidence pivotal to these claims.

The lawsuit’s current stage involves choosing specific cases of liver and thyroid cancer to undergo the bellwether process.

This process mimics trial scenarios to gauge how a jury might react to the presented evidence and testimonials.

A critical part of this stage is the deadline set for both parties to share scientific studies that either support or dispute the claims of cancer linked to AFFF exposure.

These exchanges will culminate in the Science Day presentations.

After the Science Day, a 60-day period is allocated to outline a comprehensive plan for moving forward with the bellwether trials.

This follows a significant settlement where the 3M Company agreed to pay over $10.3 billion to resolve water contamination claims from local water suppliers.

However, the cancer claims related to AFFF exposure are still unresolved.

Individuals who have been exposed to AFFF and have since developed cancer or other health issues might be eligible to participate in the AFFF Lawsuit.

TruLaw offers free consultations to those affected. 

Alternatively, our ChatBot is available to immediately assist in determining your eligibility for the AFFF lawsuit. 

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.

As of the latest filings by the JPML, there are currently 7,170 lawsuits regarding Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) waiting to be combined.

In the United States, Multidistrict Litigations (MDLs) serve as a mechanism to efficiently manage multiple civil lawsuits that share common issues, facts, or defendants.

These litigations often involve a large number of plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits under similar circumstances, such as cases of product liability, pharmaceuticals, or mass torts, and allow for the consolidation of these cases in a single federal district court for the purpose of pretrial proceedings.

The goal of the AFFF MDLs is to make the litigation process more efficient by centralizing the discovery phase, minimizing repetitive efforts, and ensuring uniform decisions on crucial legal matters.

The recent addition of 176 cases over the past month highlights the ongoing growth of the AFFF MDL initiative.

While a settlement has previously been reached concerning water contamination issues, legal actions regarding individual exposure to AFFF continue.

If you or someone close to you has experienced harm due to AFFF, understanding your legal rights is crucial. 

You can use the chatbot on this page to instantly check if you qualify for the AFFF lawsuit.

Connecticut’s Attorney General has initiated two legal actions targeting 28 chemical manufacturers, accusing them of deliberate contamination of the state’s water and natural resources through the use of PFAS chemicals.

These lawsuits are designed to establish the companies’ responsibility for PFAS pollution stemming from two primary sources: the use of Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in firefighting and the incorporation of PFAS in the production of consumer goods such as food packaging, cookware, carpeting, upholstery, clothing, and cosmetics.

PFAS chemicals are notorious for their long-lasting presence in the environment and their association with severe health issues, including various forms of cancer, liver damage, birth defects, elevated cholesterol levels, infertility, and diabetes.

The primary objectives of these legal actions are to secure both injunctive and monetary relief.

This would entail compelling the companies to dispose of their hazardous chemical inventories, mitigate pollution within Connecticut, disclose their research findings, and reimburse the state for expenses related to remediation and testing.

Additionally, the complaints seek penalties for breaches of state laws extending back several decades.

These companies are alleged to have possessed knowledge about the toxicity and enduring nature of PFAS since the 1950s, yet they allegedly failed to safeguard the public interest, resulting in widespread contamination.

Although Connecticut has already taken measures to ban PFAS use in firefighting foam and food packaging, the state is still grappling with the consequences of PFAS pollution.

The lawsuits underscore contamination across various water systems and demand accountability from the chemical manufacturers held responsible for the environmental harm.

In essence, these legal actions symbolize Connecticut’s commitment to addressing the grave health and environmental repercussions associated with PFAS contamination while holding the responsible parties answerable for their actions.

The MDL judge recently granted a joint motion, allowing an extension for the parties to conduct discussions on an ongoing discovery dispute and a motion to compel.

The extended deadline for these discussions is now January 31st.

Hawaii’s Attorney General, Anne E. Lopez, has initiated legal proceedings against 25 manufacturers of firefighting foam products containing harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

In this lawsuit, it is alleged that these companies breached state consumer protection and tort laws by concealing the environmental and human health risks associated with PFAS products, all while profiting from their sale.

The lawsuit aims to hold these defendants accountable for all expenses related to PFAS, encompassing testing, treatment, and monitoring of the state’s natural resources.

It seeks compensation for residents who have suffered losses due to natural resource damage, disposal costs, civil penalties, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, and other remedies.

This legal action by Hawaii’s AG is the latest in a series of actions taken against AFFF manufacturers, joining the numerous claims filed by individuals who have been exposed to PFAS.

The AFFF class action MDL is centered on the Telomer water provider cases, a subgroup of water contamination issues.

Recent orders and rulings specifically pertain to this subgroup, not covered by the August water contamination settlement.

Regrettably, this focus suggests a potential delay for the remaining individual cancer cases.

Water contamination lawsuits have dominated the AFFF class action docket, leading to some frustration.

The delay’s severe consequences are underscored by the submission of three “Suggestion of Death” notices in the MDL, signifying the passing of three plaintiffs awaiting justice.

These notices formally inform the court and involved parties about a party’s demise in the lawsuit, initiating the process of substituting the deceased with a representative from their estate, typically the executor or administrator.

Kathy Jennings, the Attorney General of Delaware, has taken legal action against 14 companies, including 3M, for their production of firefighting foam containing “forever chemicals,” allegedly resulting in soil and aquifer contamination within the state.

The lawsuit claims that these companies, involved in manufacturing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), introduced PFAS into the environment, leading to harm and health hazards for residents.

Before filing the lawsuit, the state conducted a comprehensive two-year investigation involving environmental sampling and scrutiny of corporate records.

Building on Delaware’s prior success in securing a $50 million settlement related to PFAS products from companies associated with DuPont, which led to over $1.1 billion in commitments nationwide to settle PFAS-related claims, the current lawsuit aims for monetary damages, compensation for natural resources, and funding for testing and addressing contamination arising from the defendants’ PFAS-containing firefighting products.

The lawsuit specifically outlines alleged efforts by the companies, especially 3M, to hide the dangers of PFAS and their products.

It asserts that 3M was aware of PFAS risks dating back to the 1950s and intentionally misled the public.

3M has stated its intent to defend itself in court and is taking steps to address PFAS concerns by remediation, investment in water treatment, and working in collaboration with affected communities.

Additionally, the case targets the remaining 12 companies, indicating that they likely knew about PFAS risks through industry groups and should have been aware of potential dangers associated with their products.

The lawsuit underscores the responsibility of these companies for the environmental and health impacts caused by their PFAS-containing firefighting foams.

In the coming weeks, parties involved in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam personal injury cases will choose which cases will be part of the bellwether discovery pool.

They have until November 14, 2023, to share their lists of potential plaintiffs for the bellwether trials.

The selected plaintiffs will undergo case-specific fact discovery, leading to the final selection of individuals for the personal injury bellwether trials.

A recent study conducted a nested case-control investigation, examining patients with thyroid cancer by analyzing plasma samples taken before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis.

This study comprised 88 thyroid cancer patients, each carefully matched with 88 healthy controls based on various factors.

The study’s results indicated a 56% higher likelihood of thyroid cancer diagnosis linked to elevated levels of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (n-PFOS).

This positive association remained statistically significant when focusing on a subgroup of thyroid cancer cases diagnosed one year or more after plasma sample collection.

These findings imply a potential link between PFAS exposure and an increased risk of (papillary) thyroid cancer, a matter of global concern given the widespread prevalence of PFAS exposure.

A recent study led by Mark Purdue, Ph.D., at the Uniformed Services University explored the link between blood levels of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), a type of PFAS chemical, and testicular cancer among active-duty Air Force servicemen.

The study found that elevated PFOS blood levels were associated with a higher risk of testicular cancer.

This research, published in July 2023, is the first to investigate this relationship using blood measurements within a military population.

Further research is needed to explore PFOS exposure and testicular cancer risk in highly exposed populations.

There are now a total of 6,000 separate AFFF Lawsuits consolidated within the multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Municipalities are on the verge of reaching a global settlement valued at more than $10.3 billion for AFFF Lawsuits related to water contamination.

This settlement would cover the expenses associated with cleaning up and addressing contamination caused by AFFF products in local water supplies throughout the country.

Municipalities are pleased with this settlement agreement, as it means that the responsibility for cleanup costs falls on the companies responsible for the pollution rather than on the residents affected by it.

Now, the spotlight remains on individuals who have initiated AFFF Lawsuits against the same group of manufacturers, asserting that their health issues are a result of exposure to AFFF fire fighting foam.

A recent study published in URO Today investigated the link between serum concentrations of PFAS and testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) in U.S. Air Force servicemen.

They found that elevated concentrations of certain PFAS were associated with military employment in firefighting and service at bases with high PFAS concentrations in drinking water.

Specifically, elevated perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) concentrations in the second sample were positively linked to TGCT.

Jones v. 3M, et al., has been recently filed directly within the AFFF  MDL in South Carolina.

The plaintiff, a 73-year-old former Air Force firefighter from Texas, alleges exposure to fluorochemical products during his service, leading to a diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent prostatectomy.

Judge Gergel approved an unopposed motion to replace a plaintiff in a lawsuit after the original Alabama plaintiff passed away.

The deceased plaintiff’s daughter has now taken over as the new plaintiff and filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

In the past month, 493 new cases were consolidated into the AFFF class action MDL, representing the highest monthly volume since the litigation’s inception.

This increase follows the recent global settlement announcement for water contamination cases.

However, the breakdown between water contamination and cancer cases remains unclear.

The MDL now encompasses over 5,000 pending cases.

The initial bellwether test trial in the AFFF class action MDL, City of Stuart v. 3M Co. et al. case, was originally set to begin on June 5, 2023.

The lawsuit pertains to allegations that AFFF contaminated the municipal water system in Stuart, Florida.

However, the trial was postponed due to the PFAS manufacturers reaching a settlement in the case.

The class action MDL received an additional 300 AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits last month, resulting in a total of 4,793 claims now pending in the multidistrict litigation.

The first test trial in the firefighting foam class action MDL begins with the case of City of Stuart v. 3M Co., et al.

The trial centers around allegations that PFAS from firefighting foam products contaminated Stuart’s water supply.

The defendants argue that there is no evidence linking their products to the contamination.

The trial outcome holds significance for the litigation, potentially resulting in a multi-billion dollar global settlement if the defendants face a substantial loss.

As the bellwether trial approaches, the defense submits its final List of Trial Exhibits, trial brief, and deposition designations.

The MDL Judge denies the defense motion for summary judgment, ensuring that the jury will decide the bulk of the plaintiffs’ claims in the upcoming trial.

Objections regarding trial exhibits arise, leading to a hearing scheduled to address these evidence-related disputes.

The judge requires lead counsel to personally argue each objection, aiming to narrow down baseless objections.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) releases research on the presence of PFAS in firefighting equipment textiles, revealing the existence of PFAS in various gear materials.

The findings prompt discussions on the potential transfer of PFAS from equipment to firefighters and their increased cancer risk.

The judge sets a deadline for the parties involved in the litigation to submit chosen parts of depositions and a list of evidence they plan to use in the upcoming trial.

There are still new cases being filed while AFFF lawsuits filed against PFAS-containing firefighting foam increase in number.

While plaintiffs await their trial, it’s important to remember that there have been several PFAS settlements in the past already, which range from a $17.5 million class action settlement to a $4 billion settlement.

It was reported that 354 new cases were added to the firefighting foam class action MDL in the last month, bringing the total number of pending cases to 4,058.

This marks the second month in a row with higher than average volume of new filings, suggesting that lawyers may be anticipating a settlement and trying to get cases filed before it happens.

A firefighting foam lawsuit was filed by Kent against 3M, and Judge Richard M. Gergel, the AFFF class action lawsuit judge in South Carolina, issued the order.

The plaintiff’s 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.

A new lawsuit was filed in South Carolina by a 62-year-old Deer Park, Texas man named Kent, who was exposed to fluorochemical products during his service as a firefighter in the United States Marine Corps.

Kent was diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent prostatectomy, and he claims that the exposure to the fluorochemical products caused him personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.

The plaintiff’s lawyers filed the complaint in accordance with Case Management Order No. 3, which designates the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas as the “home venue” for the case.

A recent article authored by eight leading scientist was published in Science Direct in December 2022 and cited over seventy other studies in support of their position.

Due to the persistence of PFASs in the human body and their ability to bioaccumulate, firefighters experience cumulative effects of PFAS-containing AFFF exposure throughout their careers, increasing their risk of developing thyroid, kidney, bladder, testicular, prostate and colon cancers.

The study suggests that PFASs may contribute to firefighter cancers, and further research is needed to evaluate the role of occupational PFAS exposure in causing an elevated cancer risk for firefighters.

Since January 15th, 317 new firefighting foam AFFF lawsuits were added to the MDL, bringing the total number of pending cases up to 3,704.

The monthly average of new cases for this MDL in 2022 was 175, so this month was almost double that.

We don’t know how many of these new cases are municipal water contamination cases versus personal injury claims.

Rulings with respect to the admissibility of scientific evidence in initial drinking water utility lawsuits involving damages caused by firefighting foam containing PFAS will be forthcoming soon.

The first bellwether trial, City of Stuart v. 3M Co., has been scheduled for June 5, and the parties are currently in the final stages of presenting arguments regarding the Daubert standard, which is the criteria that the US District Court for the District of South Carolina should use to evaluate scientific testimony and evidence.

These rulings could impact the admissibility of certain scientific evidence in the cancer lawsuits.

The AFFF MDL Judge is set to make critical rulings on Daubert motions challenging the admissibility of scientific evidence in City of Stuart v. 3M Co., et al. (the first bellwether trial set for June).

The City of Stuart is a water supply contamination case, not a personal injury case involving claims that exposure to AFFF caused cancer.

However, the Daubert rulings on causation evidence in the City of Stuart will still have some applicability to what scientific evidence will be allowed in AFFF cancer cases.

The personal injury cases will participate in a separate bellwether trial program after the water supply trials.

Many victims do not contact us because they believe the statute of limitation 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 that is critical to extending the deadline to file an AFFF lawsuit.

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 2023 when they absolutely do.

The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing and law firms are accepting clients daily.

Similar to previous lawsuits filed for PFAS contamination, the City of Mansfield, Ohio is filing suit against 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard for AFFF contamination of local drinking water.

The contamination stems from use by the Ohio Air National Guard at the local airport.

If you or a loved one were exposed to AFFF and subsequently suffered health problems, you may be eligible to file suit.

Contact us for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify for the Firefighting Foam Lawsuit instantly.