$7.35 Billion PFAS Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Settlement Reached Over Cancer Injuries

3M will begin funding the settlement with $50 million in 2026, while a court order requires attorneys to identify eligible PFAS injury claimants this month.

3M has agreed to pay up to $7.35 billion to resolve personal injury claims involving an estimated 115,000 to 120,000 individuals nationwide who allege exposure to toxic chemicals in firefighting foam caused cancer and other serious health problems.

The agreement is intended to resolve approximately 99% of existing PFAS personal injury claims against 3M, although individual plaintiffs must agree to participate before their claims can be resolved through the settlement program.

The litigation stems from the widespread use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), which has been used for decades by civilian and military firefighters to combat petroleum-based fires. Many formulations contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly known as “forever chemicals,” which persist in the environment and have been linked to serious health concerns.

PFAS contamination has been detected in drinking water supplies and soil throughout the United States, particularly near airports, military installations and firefighting training facilities where AFFF was frequently used. As a result, firefighters and nearby communities have faced concerns about prolonged exposure to the chemicals through direct contact and contaminated drinking water.

3M was one of the major producers of PFAS chemicals used in firefighting foam and has been named as a defendant in thousands of AFFF and PFAS drinking water lawsuits alleging the company failed to adequately warn about the health risks.

The new settlement covers claims involving six qualifying injuries, including:

• Kidney cancer
• Testicular cancer
• Liver cancer
• Thyroid cancer
• Thyroid disease
• Ulcerative colitis

For several years, federal firefighting foam injury lawsuits have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel in the District of South Carolina, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) established to coordinate discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Settlement

On November 3, 3M announced that it had reached a “broad resolution” of AFFF personal injury litigation, following negotiations with attorneys representing plaintiffs pursuing PFAS injury claims.

Under the agreement, 3M has committed up to $7.35 billion in payments between 2026 and 2034, with a present value of approximately $5.8 billion. The company will contribute an initial $50 million in 2026, with no payments scheduled for 2027. Additional payments are expected to begin in 2028, with approximately 20% of the total commitment scheduled for the final two years.

The settlement includes provisions intended to encourage widespread participation among eligible plaintiffs, along with additional payments tied to participation thresholds and a reserve fund of up to $680 million. That reserve is included in the overall settlement commitment and is subject to conditions and allocation procedures.

Although the agreement is intended to resolve nearly all existing personal injury claims against 3M, compensation is not automatic. Claimants must elect to participate, submit the necessary documentation and satisfy the settlement’s eligibility requirements. The final amount 3M pays will also depend on whether certain conditions are met.

“This settlement is a significant milestone for 3M and substantially reduces litigation uncertainty. Following our 2023 resolution with U.S. public water suppliers and our more recent settlement with the state of New Jersey, this is another important step in managing legacy PFAS matters.”

– 3M Chairman and CEO William Brown

3M indicates that it completed its previously announced phaseout of PFAS manufacturing worldwide by the end of 2025. However, the company maintains that the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

Judge Orders Identification of Eligible PFAS Injury Claims

One day after the settlement was announced, Judge Gergel issued Case Management Order No. 39, establishing new requirements for attorneys to identify individuals who may be eligible to participate in the settlement.

The November 4 order requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to identify all eligible individuals they currently represent by November 13, regardless of whether those claims have been filed in court or whether the individuals ultimately intend to accept the settlement.

Attorneys must provide identifying information, litigation details, alleged PFAS exposure and the specific qualifying injuries claimed by each individual. The order also addresses individuals whose lawsuits were previously dismissed without prejudice, requiring additional verification when attorneys continue to represent those plaintiffs.

For eligible claimants who have not filed lawsuits, the order generally requires attorneys to bring their claims before the MDL court within 10 days after the November 13 identification deadline, subject to certain exceptions. Additional requirements also apply to plaintiffs who have not previously submitted the necessary fact sheets.

The court emphasized that identifying an individual as an eligible claimant does not require that person to participate in the settlement or guarantee compensation.

The identification process is intended to establish a more complete accounting of existing PFAS personal injury claims and assist in determining which plaintiffs will participate in the settlement program.

Remaining Firefighter Foam Injury Lawsuits

This 3M firefighter foam injury lawsuit settlement does not resolve the litigation for companies like DuPont, BASF, Corteva and others. Those claims are still pending before Judge Gergel.

It is also unclear whether the deal will include separate firefighter turnout gear PFAS lawsuits, which were consolidated in the District of Minnesota before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan in August. Judge Bryan will oversee coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings.

Judge Gergel originally called for the turnout gear lawsuits to be consolidated in his court with the rest of the litigation. However, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that it was unnecessary and would make the proceedings too complex.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.