PFAS Drinking Water Lawsuit Filed by 16 Plaintiffs Over Testicular Cancer, Kidney Cancer, Ulcerative Colitis Side Effects

Lawsuit is being brought against more than 20 chemical manufacturers, alleging plaintiffs’ injuries can be attributed to AFFF products containing toxic chemicals.

A group of 16 plaintiffs has filed a product liability lawsuit against more than 20 chemical manufacturers, alleging they developed cancer and other serious health conditions after years of consuming drinking water contaminated by toxic chemicals used in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).

The complaint (PDF) was filed on May 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by lead plaintiff Adam Villalobos and others, naming major chemical manufacturers such as 3M Company, E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co., Raytheon Technologies Corporation, The Chemours Company, and Tyco Fire Products L.P., among others as defendants.

PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of more than 9,000 synthetic compounds often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment or the human body. For decades, PFAS have been a primary ingredient in AFFF, which is commonly used to suppress high-intensity fires involving jet fuel or other flammable liquids at military bases, airports and industrial facilities.

When AFFF is sprayed during emergency responses or routine training exercises, the PFAS chemicals can seep into surrounding soil and groundwater. Over time, this contamination can infiltrate public drinking water systems, exposing nearby communities to long-term toxic exposure.

A growing body of scientific research has linked PFAS exposure to a wide range of serious health issues, including hormone disruption, immune system suppression, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis and several cancers—particularly testicular and kidney cancer.

In response to these health risks, thousands of AFFF lawsuits have been filed by firefighters and residents who unknowingly consumed contaminated groundwater, claiming companies such as 3M, Chemguard and others failed to warn about the dangers of PFAS, including risks of cancer and other health problems.

Given the shared questions of fact and law across the complaints, the claims have been centralized as part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) before Judge Richard M. Gergel in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiffs allege that chemical manufacturers, including 3M Company, Chemguard and others, failed to warn the public about the long-term health risks associated with PFAS exposure.

On June 16, Villalobos’s complaint was transferred to the federal Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, joining more than 10,300 similar claims filed to date. 

According to the lawsuit, lead plaintiff Adam Villalobos was regularly exposed to PFAS chemicals manufactured by the defendants through daily consumption of contaminated drinking water. He has since been diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting the colon and rectum.

In addition to Villalobos, plaintiffs Brenda Thomas Rhodes, Charley Luther, Kelly Patrick Card and Teresa Schnabel have also been diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, which they attribute to PFAS contamination in their local water supplies.

Plaintiffs Aldo Segui, Alexander Trefz, Brandon Eck, Isaiah Stoner, Richard Bozner, Ronald Elliotte and Steven Pérez allege that exposure to the same PFAS chemicals caused them to develop testicular cancer.

The remaining plaintiffs, Alexander Perales, Daniel Beeson, Girlie Violetta Bowling and William Keating, each claim they developed kidney cancer after years of drinking water tainted by the defendants’ fluorochemical products.

“Defendants knew and/or should have known and/or foresaw and/or should have foreseen that their marketing, development, manufacture, distribution, release, training and response of users, production of instructional materials, sale and/or other handling and/or use of fluorochemical products, including AFFF containing PFAS, including in areas where Plaintiffs have resided, would result in the contamination of the blood and/or body of Plaintiffs with PFAS chemicals and the biopersistence and bioaccumulation of such PFAS in Plaintiffs’ blood and/or body.”

–Villalobos, et al v. 3M Company, et al.

The plaintiffs bring forth a wide range of claims against all defendants, including product liability based on defective design under both the consumer expectations and risk-utility theories. They also allege failure to warn, negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. Additional claims include negligence per se, continuing and past trespass, battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress.

The plaintiffs are seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

June 2025 AFFF Lawsuits Update

The growing AFFF litigation involves two main groups of plaintiffs, both tied to health risks from toxic PFAS chemicals used in firefighting foam.

One group includes individuals and communities whose drinking water was contaminated by PFAS runoff from military bases, airports and industrial sites. The other group consists of firefighters, military personnel and airport workers who were directly exposed during training and emergency response.

As pretrial proceedings continue in the federal AFFF litigation, the court is narrowing down which cases will go before juries first. On October 20, 2025, the first AFFF trial is expected to begin, focusing on claims involving kidney cancer allegedly caused by exposure to AFFF-contaminated water near military installations and airports.

Earlier this year, plaintiffs proposed consolidating five lawsuits for a multi-plaintiff trial, including three kidney cancer claims and two testicular cancer claims, all tied to the same water source in Pennsylvania. However, due to opposition from the defendants, the court may proceed with separate trials.

In May, the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee recommended that three kidney cancer cases be tried individually, starting with claims brought by Brock Donnelly, Clinton Speers and Kevin Voelker. Two additional testicular cancer lawsuits, filed by Michael Bien and Alex Field, also remain eligible for early trial dates.

While the outcomes of these trials will not be binding on other claims in the MDL, they are expected to provide critical insight into how juries respond to the scientific evidence linking PFAS exposure to cancer. The results may play a significant role in shaping the direction of future settlement negotiations and AFFF lawsuit payouts.