PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances), also called “forever chemicals,” are used in various commercial and consumer products. These polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are persistent chemicals that do not degrade naturally. Instead, they remain in the environment, contaminating the soil and drinking water systems.
The use of PFAS, which includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), has led to widespread contamination of drinking water. PFAS chemicals are known for their strong chemical bonds and environmental persistence, making them difficult to remove once released. Exposure to these toxic chemicals in contaminated drinking water is linked to cancer and other medical conditions.
Suppose you or a loved one were exposed to PFAS and developed severe health complications. In that case, you may be eligible for financial compensation by filing a PFAS contamination lawsuit based on failure to warn, negligence, and product liability. The environmental and health risks associated with PFAS exposure have prompted increased regulation and legal action.
Contact an experienced attorney today to learn whether you qualify for monetary compensation under a PFAS water contamination lawsuit. PFAS water contamination lawyers specialize in representing individuals and communities affected by PFAS exposure, guiding them through lawsuits and settlement negotiations.
What Is PFAS and Why Is It a Legal Battleground?
PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are large and complex synthetic chemicals that have been used in everyday consumer products globally since the 1950s. For instance, these substances are used to prevent food from sticking to cookware or packaging, make clothes and carpets stain-resistant, and make firefighting foam more effective. PFAS manufacturing began in the mid-20th century, with major companies like DuPont and 3M leading the production and distribution of these chemicals.
PFAS molecules have chains of linked fluorine and carbon atoms. Since carbon-fluorine bonds are one of the strongest bonds, these substances don’t break down easily in the environment. PFAS compounds are known for their persistence, remaining in soil and water for decades and contributing to long-term environmental contamination.
PFAS Water Contamination
Recent studies in environmental science have revealed widespread contamination of groundwater in the United States with PFAS. PFAS are easily released into the environment in places where chemicals are made, disposed of, used, or spilled. These chemicals are highly mobile, and once they’re released into the atmosphere, they easily get into rainwater run-offs. As a result, they end up in rivers, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. They also seep through the soil and get into the groundwater.
Recent scientific studies show that long-term exposure to high levels of PFAS can cause cancer and other severe health conditions, like pregnancy complications and ulcerative colitis.
As a result, thousands of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits alleging adverse health effects from PFAS against manufacturers and companies that produce products containing PFAS. Many of these lawsuits are part of the PFAS class, a legal and regulatory category that consolidates claims involving various PFAS chemicals in class action and multidistrict litigation. Both local municipalities and individuals claimed that their water systems were contaminated, and they developed cancer and other severe health complications from drinking polluted water. Each lawsuit alleges that PFAS exposure led to significant health and environmental damages, and PFAS claims form the basis for seeking compensation and holding companies accountable.
Defendants in these toxic chemical water lawsuits include industrial companies and large chemical manufacturers. PFAS manufacturers have played a significant role in the spread of PFAS contamination due to their long-term production and use of these chemicals.
2 of the companies named as primary defendants in these toxic chemical water lawsuits include DuPont and 3M.
Communities and Water Systems Impacted by PFAS
People who live near military bases or factories are more likely to be exposed to PFAS. These areas often experience groundwater contamination and a contaminated water supply due to PFAS chemicals. AFFF or Aqueous Film Forming Foam, which are types of firefighting foams, are one of the primary sources of PFAS water contamination. These foams have contained PFAS and have been widely used at airports, military bases, and by civilian firefighters to extinguish fuel-based fires for decades.
Research shows that the Department of Defense warned 2,100 farms near 100 military bases that their irrigation water systems might be polluted with PFAS.
Military bases in these states were flagged for PFAS water contamination:
- California (Fresno, East Los Angeles, or San Jose)
- Alabama (Satsuma, Guin, Centre, and Saraland)
- Florida (Miami, Stuart, Pensacola)
- Colorado (Denver, Colorado Springs)
- Illinois (Collinsville)
- New Hampshire (Portsmouth)
- Massachusetts (Easton, Ayer, Lanesborough, Hyannis)
- New York (Hampton Bays)
- New Jersey
- Ohio (Dayton)
- North Carolina (Brunswick County, Maysville)
- South Carolina (Clinton, Charleston)
- Pennsylvania (Warrington, Warminster)
PFAS contaminated drinking water is a widespread problem in these communities.
Major Companies Involved in PFAS Litigation
PFAS water contamination is one of the most significant public health and environmental crises, affecting entire communities. Thousands of PFAS contamination lawsuits have been filed against large chemical manufacturers, including Chemours, DuPont, and 3M, as well as allegations targeting the United States government for mishandling the dangerous firefighting foam. PFAS manufacturers and the broader PFAS industry are increasingly being held accountable for their role in widespread contamination and the resulting health and environmental damages.
3M made and sold aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) from 1970 to 2012. DuPont and its subsidiaries have manufactured PFAS and supplied them to other chemical companies, including 3M, since the 1940s. PFAS pollution caused by these PFAS chemicals is at the center of many lawsuits, as communities seek compensation for environmental contamination and health risks.
Additionally, local municipalities and thousands of individuals have also filed their own PFAS contamination lawsuits. The scope of litigation for PFAS claims, reflects the broad legal response to PFAS exposure. These lawsuits claim that the complainants consumed drinking water polluted by PFAS and developed adverse health complications, like cancer, due to exposure to PFAS in their water systems. Many of these cases involve personal injury claims for those harmed by PFAS exposure, with law firms representing victims in their pursuit of justice. Cleanup costs are a significant factor in these cases, as the financial burden of remediating PFAS contamination often drives the value of settlements and litigation outcomes.
Recent PFAS Lawsuit Settlements and Updates (2025)
On August 19, 2025, the first bellwether trial in the forever chemicals legal action was removed from the calendar following a court ruling that determined many potential lawsuits remain unfiled. These bellwether cases are being heard in federal court, with the South Carolina federal court serving as a key venue for PFAS-related litigation.
On August 15, Honorable Judge Richard Gergel issued Case Management Order 035 that required the complaints’ Executive Committee to file every lawsuit they represent involving testicular cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid cancer, or thyroid disease. He provided a 21-day Filing Facilitation Window, which will lapse on September 5, 2025. Also, the order encourages non-lead counsel to file their lawsuits within that period, as it streamlines the process by allowing bundled claims and short-form pleadings. This process is significant in the context of PFAS class action lawsuits and the broader PFAS class action lawsuit landscape, which have become central to securing PFAS settlements for affected communities.
Additionally, the order sets firm evidence requirements. Each lawsuit must be supported by documents that demonstrate a medical diagnosis, proof of PFAS exposure, positive PFAS tests, and reliable records, work history, or residency. All that information must be submitted via the court’s electronic portal. Judge Gergel also explained that the flood of unfiled cases may destabilize the multi-district litigation (MDL), potentially threatening ongoing settlement discussions. Therefore, he directed both parties to provide detailed compliance updates in the coming months and indicated that further orders would follow if the lawyers did not meet these requirements. Efforts to resolve PFAS contamination claims are ongoing, and PFAS contamination claims remain a critical focus in these proceedings.
On August 18, 2025, a federal judge in Maryland delivered a strategic win for complainants, dismissing Perdue Farm’s motion to reject a newly filed PFAS health effects lawsuit brought by Salisbury residents claiming toxic waste water dumping. Two cases were dismissed, including one that sought company-funded remediation for cleanup.
However, a core legal action survived and will move forward. That decision shows that judges won’t allow the industry to dodge accountability, even in early procedural stages. These cases are part of a growing trend in environmental litigation and water contamination litigation, with the Safe Drinking Water Act playing a key role in establishing standards and legal grounds for such lawsuits.
On August 8, 2025, a judge in New Jersey awarded what will go down in history as one of the most significant environmental settlements by any United States state–$2 billion against Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva. This massive PFAS settlement spans over 25 years, funding the establishment of safety and cleanup measures in the event of bankruptcy or default.
On August 5, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court authorized state regulators to require PFAS cleanup — even before the toxic substances are formally designated as hazardous. This preemptive order opens a strategic frontier, allowing trial attorneys to secure early cleanup mandates against chemical companies — shortening the process to leverage and obtain relief in toxic tort litigation.
Health Risks Linked to PFAS Exposure
According to recent data, PFAS is present in 98% of United States water systems, and 99.7% of residents tested near Cannon Air Force Base (AFB) had detectable levels of PFAS in their blood. These are remarkably high numbers that showcase the prevalence of PFAS in the world today. The widespread presence of PFAS highlights significant PFAS risks to both the environment and public health.
Since PFAS are everywhere, you can be exposed to them in many ways. Some of them are more serious, for example, when you:
- Drink polluted drinking water or other liquids contaminated with PFAS
- Swallow polluted dust or soil
- Eat polluted foods
- Inhale PFAS-contaminated air
But you can also suffer less intensive PFAS exposure, like when you:
- Work with equipment or products with PFAS in them, including firefighters using AFFF foam
- Use PFAS products, for instance, when unwrapping food packed with PFAS material
That exposure might build up because the human body can’t process these toxic chemicals, as PFAS don’t degrade. Toxic PFAS are persistent in the environment and can accumulate in the body over time. Although researchers are still studying the health impacts of PFAS, research has linked PFAS exposure to a range of health problems, including:
- Cancer, especially:
- Liver
- Prostate
- Kidney
- Breast
- Ovarian
- Testicular
- Immune system complications, including a reduction in vaccine response
- Liver damage
- Thyroid disease
- Reproductive harm to pregnant women and the fetus
- Developmental delays in kids, including:
- Bone variations
- Low birth weight
- Behavioral changes
- Low fertility rates
- Increased cholesterol levels
- Hormone disruption, including accelerated puberty
But the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) notes that many health issues remain unknown, and scientific research has primarily focused on the most common PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS.
The level of contact with PFASs is massive: around 200 million Americans — nearly half of the population — live in areas with tap water, which exceeds the EPA’s estimated safe level of one part per trillion.
Class Action vs. Individual Lawsuits: What You Need to Know
A class action is a case filed by a group of individuals, referred to as a “class,” who have similar claims against a common defendant. These are large-scale lawsuits where individual damages might be small, but cumulatively, they represent a significant allegation against the defendant. Opting to file a class action lawsuit means you’ll join hundreds or thousands, sometimes millions of other plaintiffs affected by the same issue.
In PFAS litigation, cases are often consolidated under a PFAS class in multidistrict litigation, allowing courts to address broad contamination issues involving various types of PFAS chemicals collectively.
One of the fundamental benefits of a class action is that it consolidates multiple lawsuits into a single lawsuit. This cumulative effort often pressures large corporations to settle.
Class actions also offer a streamlined legal process, sparing individual plaintiffs the need to file and manage separate cases.
State and local governments are also frequently involved in these lawsuits, seeking to address environmental concerns and reduce PFAS contamination in their communities.
However, joining class actions has some drawbacks, including a lack of control over the lawsuit specifics and potentially smaller individual payouts due to the lawsuit’s broad scope.
Individual lawsuits, on the other hand, are customized to personal grievances. This legal strategy is ideal when your damages are unique and substantial compared to others, or when you would like to have more control over legal approaches and decisions.
Conversely, the customized nature of individual cases means they’re more time-consuming, complex, and costly to navigate without legal help.
Primarily, the decision between pursuing an individual case or joining a class action depends on various factors, including:
- Control and Involvement: Determine the level of control you need over legal proceedings. If you want passive participation, a class action is perfect for you. However, for active participation, individual cases are better.
- Extent of damages: For significant, unique damages, consider pursuing an individual suit. But if your damages are smaller and mirrored by others, a class action suit may be preferable.
- Cost considerations: Assess your financial situation in relation to potential legal expenses for individual cases versus the shared costs of class actions.
Consult with an experienced attorney to determine the most effective legal approach for your specific circumstances.
Legal Options for Victims of PFAS Contamination
The widespread presence of PFAS in the country’s water systems underscores the urgent need for legal recourse for individuals and communities affected by these contaminants. By seeking justice, you’ll not only recover financial compensation but also force industry-wide changes to avert further harm.
As public awareness of the dangers of PFAS continues to rise, so will efforts to hold liable parties accountable and safeguard public health. If you or a loved one believes you’ve been harmed by PFAS exposure, contact a skilled PFAS water contamination lawyer today to learn your legal options.
At Allconsumer.com, our goal is to keep consumers up-to-date with the latest consumer issues. Sign up for our newsletter today to stay up-to-date.
