Free Case Evaluation
FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW
TO REQUEST YOUR CASE REVIEW
Latest AFFF Lawsuit Updates
Our attorneys are reviewing claims from firefighters, military personnel, and residents diagnosed with cancer or thyroid disease after exposure to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) and the PFAS chemicals it contains.
AFFF claims are consolidated in MDL 2873, In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel.
To qualify, claimants generally need a documented diagnosis of a PFAS-linked cancer or condition plus a verifiable exposure history (occupational use, base assignment, or residential proximity to a contaminated water source).
Fill out the form to check your eligibility and find out if you qualify to file a claim.
The litigation alleges that 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Tyco Fire Products, Kidde-Fenwal, National Foam, and other manufacturers knew for decades that PFOA and PFOS, the legacy PFAS compounds in AFFF, are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. Internal corporate records dating to the 1960s and 1970s document concerns about cancer and developmental harm that were never disclosed to firefighters, military personnel, or downstream water utilities.
Diagnoses being investigated:
- Kidney Cancer (renal cell carcinoma)
- Testicular Cancer
- Thyroid Cancer and Thyroid Disease
- Pancreatic Cancer
- Liver Cancer
- Ulcerative Colitis
- Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension / Preeclampsia
- Hypothyroidism
2023 Settlements: 3M agreed to pay up to $10.3 billion to public water utilities over 13 years (June 2023). DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva agreed to pay $1.185 billion to public water systems. These settlements resolved the water-utility track only. Personal injury and property claims continue.
Bellwether Track: Personal injury bellwether selection is underway. The first bellwether tier focuses on kidney cancer and testicular cancer claims with the strongest occupational exposure profiles.
Table of Contents
[show]- What is AFFF and Why It Is Being Litigated
- Cancers and Diseases Linked to PFAS
- Who Was Exposed: Firefighters, Military, and Communities
- MDL 2873: Court, Judge, and Two-Track Structure
- 3M and DuPont 2023 Settlements Explained
- Who Qualifies to File a Personal Injury Claim
- How to File and What to Expect
Live AFFF Litigation Update: Personal Injury Bellwethers Moving Forward
(Firefighting Foam Cancer Claims, May 2026)
AFFF is a fluorine-based firefighting foam used to suppress flammable-liquid fires. It was the standard suppressant on military bases, civilian airports, and at industrial facilities for over 50 years.
The foam owes its effectiveness to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as "forever chemicals" because the carbon-fluorine bond does not break down in the environment or in human tissue.
Plaintiffs allege the manufacturers knew the cancer risk and contamination risk and continued selling the foam without adequate warnings.
The litigation is one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history by case volume, defendant count, and settlement size.
"Forever chemicals do not break down. They accumulate in human blood, in groundwater, and in soil for generations."
What is AFFF and Why It Is Being Litigated
Aqueous film-forming foam was developed by 3M and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in the 1960s. The foam blankets a fuel fire and starves it of oxygen.
Two PFAS compounds did most of the work in legacy AFFF: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). Both belong to the long-chain PFAS family. Both persist in the environment indefinitely. Both bioaccumulate in human tissue.
Newer "C6" telomer-based foams replaced the legacy formulations starting in the 2000s. Plaintiffs have raised claims against telomer foam manufacturers as well, arguing that the breakdown products of C6 foams are themselves PFAS.
The litigation rests on two pillars: documented internal corporate knowledge of the risks, and an expanding body of epidemiological evidence linking PFAS to specific cancers and conditions.
The C8 Science Panel, established as part of an earlier DuPont settlement in West Virginia, examined data from 69,000 residents exposed to PFOA from a Chemours plant. The panel found "probable links" between PFOA exposure and six conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and high cholesterol.
That C8 Science Panel finding is the backbone of the current litigation.
- 3M and DuPont internal documents acknowledge cancer concerns going back to the 1970s
- The C8 Science Panel established probable links to six conditions
- EPA has set enforceable drinking-water limits for six PFAS compounds (April 2024)
- 3M's $10.3 billion water-utility settlement in 2023 signals the magnitude of liability exposure
Who Was Exposed: The Three Plaintiff Groups
MDL 2873 covers three exposure pathways. Each has its own evidence pattern and its own bellwether track.
Firefighters (Civilian and Military)
Hard Truth: Career firefighters trained with AFFF for decades, often in unprotected exposure scenarios. Live-burn pits, foam pickup, contaminated bunker gear and turnout gear (PFAS is also used in fabric water-repellents), and skin absorption all contribute. Military firefighters at airfields and naval bases used AFFF heaviest of all. Crash-rescue personnel at civilian airports follow close behind. Blood-serum PFAS levels in long-tenured firefighters routinely run 10 to 100 times the national average. Many states have enacted firefighter cancer presumption laws (recognizing kidney, testicular, thyroid, and other cancers as occupational illnesses) that strengthen workers' compensation claims and run alongside an AFFF lawsuit.
Military Service Members and Base Residents
Hard Truth: The Department of Defense has identified more than 700 current and former military installations with confirmed or suspected PFAS contamination. Service members who lived on these bases, drank the water, and bathed in it for years carry exposure profiles strong enough to support claims even without firefighting duty. Family members on base, including children, are eligible plaintiffs in many cases.
Residents Near Contaminated Water Sources
Hard Truth: PFAS migrates from training sites through groundwater into private wells and municipal supplies. Communities downstream of military bases, AFFF manufacturers, and airports have measurable PFAS in tap water at levels far above the EPA's 4 parts-per-trillion enforceable limit for PFOA and PFOS. Long-term residents diagnosed with C8 Science Panel conditions may qualify regardless of occupation.
The Defendants and Their AFFF Brands
The MDL names a defined set of manufacturers. Most claims target the original PFOA/PFOS makers, but telomer-foam producers and equipment integrators have also been brought in:
Named Defendants in MDL 2873
3M co-developed AFFF with the U.S. Navy and was the dominant supplier from the 1960s through 2002, when it voluntarily phased out PFOS production after EPA pressure. 3M's internal documents (the "3M papers") show the company knew PFOS was building up in human blood by the 1970s. 3M's June 2023 agreement allocates up to $10.3 billion to public water utilities through 2036.
DuPont manufactured AFFF and used PFOA at its Washington Works plant in West Virginia. The 2017 C8 medical monitoring settlement and the 2023 water-utility deal ($1.185 billion across DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva) reflect prior and ongoing liability. The corporate restructuring (Chemours spinoff in 2015) created a multi-defendant payment structure.
Tyco Fire Products manufactured AFFF under the Ansul brand and is one of the larger non-3M defendants. Tyco's exposure traces to long-running supply contracts with the Department of Defense and to telomer-based foam formulations sold under the Ansul label.
Kidde-Fenwal (parent: Carrier Global) and National Foam are additional manufacturer defendants. The MDL also includes equipment integrators and surfactant suppliers in some bellwether tracks. The defendant count makes apportionment of liability one of the central legal questions in the litigation.
The 2023 Water-Utility Settlements: What They Mean for PI Plaintiffs
3M's $10.3 billion settlement and the DuPont/Chemours/Corteva $1.185 billion settlement both resolved claims brought by public water systems. They paid for sampling, treatment, and remediation. They did not resolve personal injury claims.
If you developed cancer after PFAS exposure, those settlements are not your case. Your claim sits in the personal injury track, and bellwether trials in that track are still being prepared.
The settlements do matter for two reasons. First, the size confirms the defendants' exposure and willingness to pay. Second, the operative discovery from the water cases has produced internal documents and expert reports that personal injury plaintiffs can use.
HARD TRUTH: The defendants will fight personal injury cases harder than they fought the water cases. Direct medical causation is more contested than groundwater contamination. Patience and documentation are the price of admission.
MDL 2873 at a Glance
Key procedural facts every claimant should understand:
- Case caption: In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873
- Court: U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division
- Judge: Hon. Richard M. Gergel
- Centralized: December 7, 2018, by the JPML
- Pending cases: Among the largest active MDLs in the federal system
- 2023 settlements: 3M up to $10.3B (water utilities); DuPont/Chemours/Corteva $1.185B (water utilities)
- Personal injury bellwethers: Active discovery; first PI bellwether trials being prepared
The PI bellwether track is structured around the C8 Science Panel conditions. Kidney cancer and testicular cancer cases have anchored the early bellwether pool because the epidemiological evidence is strongest for those two diagnoses.
Who Qualifies to File an AFFF Personal Injury Lawsuit
Eligibility centers on three things: a qualifying diagnosis, a documented exposure history, and a timely filing.
- Qualifying diagnosis: Kidney cancer (renal cell carcinoma), testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, hypothyroidism, ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer (cases vary by bellwether tier)
- Occupational exposure: Service as a career or volunteer firefighter, military firefighter, airport crash rescue, refinery firefighter, or industrial fire brigade with documented AFFF training and use
- Residential exposure: Long-term residence on or near a contaminated military installation, AFFF manufacturing site, or downstream water source with documented PFAS levels
- Diagnosis date: Diagnosis within the discovery-rule window for your state
- Documentation: Service records, training records, water-test results, medical records, and any retained foam-product packaging
Family members of exposed firefighters and service members may have separate claims, particularly when in-utero or developmental exposure is documented.
Compensation Available in AFFF Personal Injury Claims
Damages cover both economic and non-economic losses.
Economic damages: past and future medical costs (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, dialysis if kidney cancer was treated by nephrectomy, ongoing oncology care), lost wages during treatment, lost earning capacity, and out-of-pocket expenses.
Non-economic damages: pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium, diminished quality of life. For young firefighters with testicular cancer, damages also reach loss of fertility and the long-term psychological impact of a cancer diagnosis at the start of a career.
Wrongful death damages: if a service member or firefighter died of a PFAS-linked cancer, surviving family may recover funeral costs, lost financial support, lost companionship, and the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering through a survival action.
Punitive damages: available where evidence supports a finding that the defendants knew about the cancer risk and continued to market AFFF without adequate warnings.
What AFFF Settlement Values May Look Like
Settlement matrices in mass torts typically tier by diagnosis, age at diagnosis, treatment burden, and exposure strength. Kidney cancer cases with documented occupational exposure and significant treatment will sit toward the higher end. Lesser conditions on the C8 list (high cholesterol, hypothyroidism without cancer) will sit lower. Our firm runs the same tiering analysis across the broader docket of active mass tort cases we represent.
Bellwether verdicts in the PI track will set the baseline. Until those verdicts return, projecting specific dollar values is premature.
For comparison context, the 2017 C8 settlement paid roughly $670 million across about 3,500 plaintiffs, averaging in the low six figures per claim. The current PI track involves more plaintiffs, more defendants, and stronger documented exposure profiles.
For broader context on how injury claims are valued, see our explanation of what your injury case is worth.
Filing Deadlines and Key Procedural Issues
Most states apply a discovery rule for latent-injury cases. The clock starts when a reasonable person would have connected the cancer to PFAS exposure, not on the date of first exposure. Public attention to PFAS health effects accelerated after 2016, and the C8 Science Panel findings give plaintiffs a defensible discovery date. Many firefighters diagnosed years earlier remain within the filing window.
The defendants have raised the federal government-contractor defense, arguing that AFFF was made to military specifications and they cannot be liable for following the spec. Judge Gergel rejected the defense at the motion-to-dismiss stage, but it remains live for summary judgment and at trial. The case-by-case evidence on what each defendant knew and disclosed will determine whether the defense applies.
Active-duty service members generally cannot sue the federal government under the Feres doctrine. AFFF claims, however, target private manufacturers, not the government. Veterans, dependents, and base residents are eligible. Veterans should also explore VA disability claims for PFAS-presumptive conditions, which run on a separate track and do not preclude an MDL claim.
MDL 2873 has a direct-filing order that lets plaintiffs file directly in the District of South Carolina while preserving home-state-law advantages. This avoids the complications of filing in state court and waiting for transfer. We file directly in MDL 2873 in most cases.
Defenses and Hurdles in AFFF Personal Injury Cases
Expect contested fights on causation, exposure dose, and apportionment among defendants.
General causation. The C8 Science Panel findings are strong for the six "probable link" conditions but weaker for cancers outside that list. Plaintiffs with diagnoses outside the C8 set face a steeper expert-witness fight.
Specific causation. Even within the C8 conditions, the defendants will argue that an individual plaintiff's cancer had alternative causes (smoking, family history, other occupational exposures). Blood-serum PFAS testing strengthens specific causation when available.
Apportionment. With 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Tyco, Kidde-Fenwal, National Foam, and others all in the litigation, defendants will argue about whose foam caused which plaintiff's injury. Foam-procurement records from fire departments and military installations help allocate.
None of these defenses defeat the litigation. They affect timeline and per-case value. Plaintiffs in adjacent toxic-exposure mass torts face the same playbook: see the Roundup glyphosate litigation and the hair relaxer cancer litigation for parallels in causation and apportionment fights. The medical-device parallel is the Philips CPAP recall litigation, where toxic off-gassing rather than chemical exposure drove the injury but the defense framework is similar.
How to File an AFFF Lawsuit
Step one: free case review. Share your diagnosis, your service or exposure history, and any retained records.
Step two: exposure documentation. We pull DD-214s, fire department training records, base assignment histories, and water-test results. Blood-serum PFAS testing is helpful where available.
Step three: medical record collection. Pathology reports, surgical records, and oncology notes confirm the qualifying diagnosis.
Step four: direct filing in MDL 2873. The plaintiff fact sheet documents exposure, diagnosis, and family history.
Step five: discovery and resolution. Cases proceed through the bellwether process or roll into a global settlement matrix once one is negotiated.
Contingency fee. No money out of pocket. No fee unless we recover for you.
Why Time Matters in AFFF Claims
The discovery rule helps, but it does not eliminate deadlines. Some states have statutes of repose that bar claims regardless of when the cancer was discovered. Documentation of exposure also gets harder over time, especially for retired firefighters whose departments have changed records systems.
If you served, trained with foam, lived on a contaminated base, or drank from a contaminated water source, and you later developed any of the C8 conditions, do not wait. Get the case review on the calendar.
AFFF Lawsuit: Frequently Asked Questions
- Q: Who qualifies for an AFFF firefighter lawsuit?
-
A: Career, volunteer, and military firefighters with documented AFFF training or use plus a diagnosis on the C8 Science Panel list (kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease including hypothyroidism, ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension, high cholesterol). Pancreatic cancer and liver cancer are also under review. Crash-rescue personnel at civilian airports, refinery firefighters, and industrial fire brigade members fit the same eligibility window. Service records, fire department training logs, and any retained product packaging strengthen the claim.
- Q: Can residents near a contaminated military base file an AFFF lawsuit?
-
A: Yes. The Department of Defense has identified more than 700 current and former installations with confirmed or suspected PFAS contamination. Long-term residents on or downstream from these bases who developed C8 conditions are part of the residential plaintiff track in MDL 2873. Family members on base, including children with documented developmental exposure, are also eligible. Water-test results and base-residency records anchor these claims.
- Q: How is an AFFF lawsuit different from a Camp Lejeune claim?
-
A: They are different cases on different tracks. Camp Lejeune claims arise under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 and target the federal government for trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), benzene, and vinyl chloride exposure between 1953 and 1987. AFFF claims target private manufacturers for PFAS exposure and are governed by state product-liability law in MDL 2873. Some veterans qualify for both; the cases are filed separately.
- Q: What is the average AFFF settlement amount?
-
A: A global personal-injury settlement matrix has not been finalized. The 3M $10.3 billion and DuPont/Chemours/Corteva $1.185 billion settlements in 2023 resolved water-utility claims, not personal injury. Bellwether trials in the PI track will set the floor. Comparable PFAS contexts (the 2017 C8 settlement averaged in the low six figures per claim) suggest that strong kidney and testicular cancer cases will sit substantially higher in the matrix that emerges.
- Q: What is the AFFF lawsuit statute of limitations?
-
A: State law governs and runs from 1 to 6 years. Most states apply the discovery rule, so the clock typically starts when a reasonable person would have linked the cancer to PFAS exposure. The C8 Science Panel findings (2012) and the broad public attention to PFAS after 2016 are common reference points. Many firefighters diagnosed years ago remain within the filing window. An AFFF attorney can confirm the deadline for your state.
- Q: Do I need an AFFF lawyer in my state?
-
A: No. Most claims are filed directly in MDL 2873 in the District of South Carolina under the court's direct-filing order, which preserves home-state-law advantages. You want an AFFF law firm with MDL experience, not a local generalist. The case review is free.
- Q: Can I file a wrongful death AFFF claim?
-
A: Yes. Surviving family members of firefighters and service members who died of PFAS-linked cancers may pursue wrongful death and survival action damages. The wrongful death clock runs from the date of death. See our overview of wrongful death claims.
Talk to an AFFF Lawyer Today
If you trained with or used aqueous film-forming foam, served on a contaminated military installation, or lived in a community with PFAS-contaminated water, and you were later diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, or another C8 condition, you may qualify to file in MDL 2873.
The case review is free and confidential. Our team handles AFFF cases on contingency. You owe nothing unless we recover compensation for you.
Free Case Evaluation
FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW
TO REQUEST YOUR CASE REVIEW
External Resources
Legal Representation
"Speak with our AFFF attorneys for a free, confidential review of your potential claim. Past results vary based on the unique facts of each case."
Find out more >>