PFAS LITIGATION

A CAUSE FOR CONCERN IN COMMUNITIES OF ALL SIZES

Even small, isolated jurisdictions without industry are at risk for potential contamination. Research shows that PFAS can be transported long distances by air and water to remote regions far from the original sources in industrial and urbanized regions. Alarming levels of PFAS have been found in populations of small, far-flung communities without nearby industrial or manufacturing facilities.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF PFAS LITIGATION

Throughout the nation, local leaders are calling for PFAS manufacturers, including 3M and Dupont/Dow, to be held accountable for the damage their products have caused and for the cost of removing PFAS from the water supply.

Litigation for water contamination and other injuries caused by PFAS through AFFF has been consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Case No. MDL 2873), in place since 2019 and presided over by Judge Richard M. Gergel.

Over 3,000 cases are consolidated in the MDL, composed of individual plaintiffs alleging personal harm and entities seeking damages for cleanup costs and other harm. More than 40 defendants have been sued in connection with the AFFF litigation to ensure that they will be held accountable for the harm they caused. The first bellwether trials are underway.

One of these defendants, 3M, reached a proposed settlement for approximately $12.5 billion with all “Public Water Systems” in the United States on June 22, 2023. Judge Gergel issued preliminary approval of the formation of this “Class Action” settlement on August 29, 2023. In a letter to the judge, a coalition of 22 attorneys general representing 22 states and territories expressed concern over the settlement, saying, “The amount falls far short of what is needed to address the harm 3M’s products have caused public water systems and appears at odds with the scope of release that would be required in exchange for participation in the Settlement. Moreover, the protracted payout period increases the risk that 3M will face insolvency before it has fully paid out that amount.”