Loading
Manufacturing
6 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Analytical Chemistry, Toxicology, Environmental Science, Soil And Water Contamination, Pollution
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Fourth Circuit
The litigation involving per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called “forever chemicals,” has become one of the most significant environmental mass torts in the United States. PFAS are synthetic fluorinated compounds widely used in firefighting foams, consumer products, and industrial applications because of their resistance to heat, oil, and water. Their chemical stability also means they persist in the environment and the human body, creating long-term contamination challenges.
Plaintiffs in PFAS lawsuits argue that leading chemical manufacturers, including 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva, failed to adequately disclose the risks associated with exposure. With research linking PFAS to cancers, diabetes, immune suppression, and developmental effects, and with billions of dollars already allocated through PFAS settlements, these cases highlight the intersection of chemistry, toxicology, and environmental law. The PFAS multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidates thousands of claims, making it a critical case study in chemical contamination lawsuits.
In December 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized lawsuits over PFAS in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in the District of South Carolina, creating MDL No. 2873. Active proceedings began in early 2019. The MDL quickly became one of the largest federal environmental consolidations in history, bringing together claims filed by states, municipalities, and water utilities over groundwater and drinking water contamination. The consolidation allowed for coordinated discovery, streamlined pretrial motions, and structured settlement discussions, framing PFAS litigation as a nationwide legal battle over chemical contamination.
In March 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first national drinking water standards for PFAS, including maximum contaminant levels for six compounds. On April 10, 2024, the EPA finalized these standards. Plaintiffs pointed to these rules as evidence of recognized public health risks, while manufacturers and water utility associations challenged them in the D.C. Circuit as exceeding federal authority. The proposals and final rule reflected the federal government’s increasing focus on chemical safety and became critical benchmarks in PFAS environmental lawsuits.
By late 2024, combined PFAS settlements were estimated at nearly $20 billion. Among the most significant were 3M’s $10–12.5 billion settlement with public water systems and DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva’s $1.185 billion settlement for remediation costs, both approved by federal courts in early 2024. Meanwhile, California enacted consumer-product bans in 2022 with effective dates beginning in 2025, targeting cosmetics and textiles. In April 2025, New Mexico enacted one of the most comprehensive PFAS bans in the nation, restricting multiple categories of consumer products. These measures reinforced state-level regulatory enforcement and strengthened the litigation landscape against chemical manufacturers.
On June 20, 2025, the South Carolina MDL court held a Science Day, where experts presented evidence on PFAS persistence, pathways of contamination, and health impacts. The proceeding highlighted the central role of expert testimony in PFAS litigation. Chemists were central participants in these hearings, explaining laboratory data on PFAS detection limits, chemical stability, and migration pathways. Around the same time, a National Institutes of Health-funded study reported associations between PFAS exposure and type 2 diabetes, while researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center found evidence linking PFAS exposure to reduced infant vaccine antibody responses. These findings expanded the scientific record, supporting ongoing lawsuits and shaping settlement negotiations.
On June 24, 2025, the State of New Mexico filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Air Force, alleging that PFAS contamination from Cannon Air Force Base and other military installations had polluted drinking water and threatened public health. News of the lawsuit was widely reported in early July. The case broadened the scope of PFAS litigation beyond private manufacturers to include government defendants, illustrating how liability for contamination spans multiple sectors.
In late June 2025, Waterkeeper Alliance reported PFAS detected in 98% of sampled U.S. waterways. By August, New Mexico released blood-testing data showing that 99.7% of residents tested near Cannon Air Force Base had PFAS in their blood. On August 4–5, 2025, New Jersey announced an $875 million proposed settlement with DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva, payable over 25 years, along with a $1.2 billion remediation funding source and a $475 million reserve. The structure of the settlement, combining direct compensation with long-term remediation funds, provided a template for future PFAS settlements nationwide.
On August 15, 2025, the MDL court issued Case Management Order 35, opening a 21-day Filing Facilitation Window. The deadline for new PFAS claims was set at September 5, 2025. Around the same time, the court vacated the October 2025 kidney-cancer bellwether trial to allow time to address the influx of new claims and settlement discussions. These steps underscored both the scale of PFAS litigation and the urgency for affected parties to file within established deadlines.
Court:
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
Case Name:
In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation
Environmental Contamination
Groundwater Contamination
Environmental Toxicology
Environmental Chemicals
Chemical Analysis
Chemical Exposures
Hydrogeology
Water Quality
Environmental Remediation
Environmental Protection Agency EPA
The litigation involving per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called “forever chemicals,” has become one of the most significant environmental mass torts in the United States. PFAS are synthetic fluorinated compounds widely used in firefighting foams, consumer products, and industrial applications because of their resistance to heat, oil, and water. Their chemical stability also means they persist in the environment and the human body, creating long-term contamination challenges.
Plaintiffs in PFAS lawsuits argue that leading chemical manufacturers, including 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva, failed to adequately disclose the risks associated with exposure. With research linking PFAS to cancers, diabetes, immune suppression, and developmental effects, and with billions of dollars already allocated through PFAS settlements, these cases highlight the intersection of chemistry, toxicology, and environmental law. The PFAS multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidates thousands of claims, making it a critical case study in chemical contamination lawsuits.
In December 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized lawsuits over PFAS in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in the District of South Carolina, creating MDL No. 2873. Active proceedings began in early 2019. The MDL quickly became one of the largest federal environmental consolidations in history, bringing together claims filed by states, municipalities, and water utilities over groundwater and drinking water contamination. The consolidation allowed for coordinated discovery, streamlined pretrial motions, and structured settlement discussions, framing PFAS litigation as a nationwide legal battle over chemical contamination.
In March 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first national drinking water standards for PFAS, including maximum contaminant levels for six compounds. On April 10, 2024, the EPA finalized these standards. Plaintiffs pointed to these rules as evidence of recognized public health risks, while manufacturers and water utility associations challenged them in the D.C. Circuit as exceeding federal authority. The proposals and final rule reflected the federal government’s increasing focus on chemical safety and became critical benchmarks in PFAS environmental lawsuits.
By late 2024, combined PFAS settlements were estimated at nearly $20 billion. Among the most significant were 3M’s $10–12.5 billion settlement with public water systems and DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva’s $1.185 billion settlement for remediation costs, both approved by federal courts in early 2024. Meanwhile, California enacted consumer-product bans in 2022 with effective dates beginning in 2025, targeting cosmetics and textiles. In April 2025, New Mexico enacted one of the most comprehensive PFAS bans in the nation, restricting multiple categories of consumer products. These measures reinforced state-level regulatory enforcement and strengthened the litigation landscape against chemical manufacturers.
On June 20, 2025, the South Carolina MDL court held a Science Day, where experts presented evidence on PFAS persistence, pathways of contamination, and health impacts. The proceeding highlighted the central role of expert testimony in PFAS litigation. Chemists were central participants in these hearings, explaining laboratory data on PFAS detection limits, chemical stability, and migration pathways. Around the same time, a National Institutes of Health-funded study reported associations between PFAS exposure and type 2 diabetes, while researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center found evidence linking PFAS exposure to reduced infant vaccine antibody responses. These findings expanded the scientific record, supporting ongoing lawsuits and shaping settlement negotiations.
On June 24, 2025, the State of New Mexico filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Air Force, alleging that PFAS contamination from Cannon Air Force Base and other military installations had polluted drinking water and threatened public health. News of the lawsuit was widely reported in early July. The case broadened the scope of PFAS litigation beyond private manufacturers to include government defendants, illustrating how liability for contamination spans multiple sectors.
In late June 2025, Waterkeeper Alliance reported PFAS detected in 98% of sampled U.S. waterways. By August, New Mexico released blood-testing data showing that 99.7% of residents tested near Cannon Air Force Base had PFAS in their blood. On August 4–5, 2025, New Jersey announced an $875 million proposed settlement with DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva, payable over 25 years, along with a $1.2 billion remediation funding source and a $475 million reserve. The structure of the settlement, combining direct compensation with long-term remediation funds, provided a template for future PFAS settlements nationwide.
On August 15, 2025, the MDL court issued Case Management Order 35, opening a 21-day Filing Facilitation Window. The deadline for new PFAS claims was set at September 5, 2025. Around the same time, the court vacated the October 2025 kidney-cancer bellwether trial to allow time to address the influx of new claims and settlement discussions. These steps underscored both the scale of PFAS litigation and the urgency for affected parties to file within established deadlines.
Chemistry Expert Witnesses
Chemistry experts, often academic or industrial chemists, analyze PFAS in environmental and biological samples, develop testing protocols, and explain their persistence and pollutant behavior. Their expertise helps courts understand how these compounds resist degradation and accumulate in water and human blood.
Toxicology Expert Witnesses
Toxicology experts assess biological interactions of PFAS, linking exposure to health outcomes such as cancer, diabetes, immune suppression, and developmental effects.
Environmental Chemistry and Hydrogeology Expert Witnesses
These experts trace how PFAS migrate through groundwater and soil, demonstrating pathways of contamination into municipal water systems and ecosystems.
Regulatory and Industrial Chemistry Expert Witnesses
Experts in chemical regulation and industry practices evaluate what manufacturers knew about PFAS risks, their disclosures, and compliance with chemical safety standards.
The PFAS lawsuits illustrate the complexity of environmental litigation, where chemistry, toxicology, and public health converge. Federal and state regulators are advancing PFAS drinking water standards, while new health studies continue to expand the scientific record. With billions already paid in settlements and bellwether trials postponed for further coordination, the litigation remains highly active. For legal professionals, these cases emphasize the importance of mastering chemical science, tracking regulatory changes, and leveraging expert witness testimony. Chemists, in particular, have been indispensable in providing the laboratory data and explanations that support claims of contamination and health risks. PFAS litigation is poised to remain a defining issue in environmental and chemical contamination law for years to come.
What are PFAS and why are they significant in litigation?
PFAS are synthetic chemicals resistant to heat, water, and oil. Their persistence and health risks make them central to environmental litigation and regulation.
Was the case fully resolved?
Not yet. As of August 2025, New Jersey announced proposed settlements with 3M and DuPont/Chemours/Corteva, both subject to court approval. Payment schedules begin once Judicial Consent Orders are entered.
Why did expert witnesses matter in this case?
Expert testimony established contamination pathways, health impacts, and economic damages, forming the basis for settlement valuations. Chemists, toxicologists, and hydrogeologists each provided specialized knowledge to build the scientific case.
What can other states learn from New Jersey’s PFAS lawsuit?
Other jurisdictions may view it as a model for combining regulatory enforcement, scientific expertise, and structured settlements in addressing PFAS pollution.
How will the settlement funds be used?
Funds are designated for natural resource damages, water treatment upgrades, remediation trusts, and long-term monitoring, subject to NJDEP and court oversight.
Chemistry Expert Witnesses
Chemistry experts, often academic or industrial chemists, analyze PFAS in environmental and biological samples, develop testing protocols, and explain their persistence and pollutant behavior. Their expertise helps courts understand how these compounds resist degradation and accumulate in water and human blood.
Toxicology Expert Witnesses
Toxicology experts assess biological interactions of PFAS, linking exposure to health outcomes such as cancer, diabetes, immune suppression, and developmental effects.
Environmental Chemistry and Hydrogeology Expert Witnesses
These experts trace how PFAS migrate through groundwater and soil, demonstrating pathways of contamination into municipal water systems and ecosystems.
Regulatory and Industrial Chemistry Expert Witnesses
Experts in chemical regulation and industry practices evaluate what manufacturers knew about PFAS risks, their disclosures, and compliance with chemical safety standards.
The PFAS lawsuits illustrate the complexity of environmental litigation, where chemistry, toxicology, and public health converge. Federal and state regulators are advancing PFAS drinking water standards, while new health studies continue to expand the scientific record. With billions already paid in settlements and bellwether trials postponed for further coordination, the litigation remains highly active. For legal professionals, these cases emphasize the importance of mastering chemical science, tracking regulatory changes, and leveraging expert witness testimony. Chemists, in particular, have been indispensable in providing the laboratory data and explanations that support claims of contamination and health risks. PFAS litigation is poised to remain a defining issue in environmental and chemical contamination law for years to come.
What are PFAS and why are they significant in litigation?
PFAS are synthetic chemicals resistant to heat, water, and oil. Their persistence and health risks make them central to environmental litigation and regulation.
Was the case fully resolved?
Not yet. As of August 2025, New Jersey announced proposed settlements with 3M and DuPont/Chemours/Corteva, both subject to court approval. Payment schedules begin once Judicial Consent Orders are entered.
Why did expert witnesses matter in this case?
Expert testimony established contamination pathways, health impacts, and economic damages, forming the basis for settlement valuations. Chemists, toxicologists, and hydrogeologists each provided specialized knowledge to build the scientific case.
What can other states learn from New Jersey’s PFAS lawsuit?
Other jurisdictions may view it as a model for combining regulatory enforcement, scientific expertise, and structured settlements in addressing PFAS pollution.
How will the settlement funds be used?
Funds are designated for natural resource damages, water treatment upgrades, remediation trusts, and long-term monitoring, subject to NJDEP and court oversight.
Environmental Contamination
Groundwater Contamination
Environmental Toxicology
Environmental Chemicals
Chemical Analysis
Chemical Exposures
Hydrogeology
Water Quality
Environmental Remediation
Environmental Protection Agency EPA
Manufacturing
Metallurgy, +4
Manufacturing
Manufacturing, +4
Manufacturing