PFAS litigation trends in 2025 and 2026 point in one direction: more defendants, more theories, and a federal regulatory floor that is narrower than it looked a year ago. Chemical manufacturers remain at the center of the fight, but the defendant pool now stretches into textiles, paper, cosmetics, food packaging, and chrome plating. Public water system settlements have crossed $13 billion. Personal injury cases are still working through causation. And a shrinking set of enforceable federal drinking water standards has forced plaintiffs to lean harder on state law, CERCLA, and common-law theories.
Who Is Getting Sued
The original defendants were the companies that synthesized the chemistry: 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, and their corporate relatives. These companies controlled the formulations, held the earliest internal health data, and sent PFAS-containing products through long global supply chains. Manufacturers of Aqueous Film-Forming Foam have drawn the heaviest concentrated fire because AFFF was used for decades at military bases, airports, and industrial facilities, leaving documented groundwater plumes at thousands of sites.1United States District Court District of South Carolina. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation
The defendant list is now moving downstream. Textile manufacturers that waterproofed fabrics, paper mills that produced grease-resistant food packaging, and chrome-plating operations that discharged PFAS-laden wastewater all face claims. The theory is simple: every entity that handled, incorporated, or released these chemicals is a potential target. The FDA’s 2025 determination that all 35 food contact notifications for PFAS-based grease-proofers on paper and paperboard are no longer effective gave plaintiffs targeting food packaging a useful regulatory data point, even though the agency stopped short of a blanket ban.2U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Authorized Uses of PFAS in Food Contact Applications
State attorneys general have become a distinct category of plaintiff. In August 2025, a North Carolina court denied a motion to dismiss in the state AG’s case against DuPont and related entities over PFAS and GenX discharges, affirming the state’s authority to pursue environmental and fraud claims under common law. Similar AG actions are pending in other states, and they carry outsized weight because they come with state resources and can pursue damages on behalf of all affected residents.
How Shrinking Federal Standards Have Reshaped the Cases
In April 2024, the EPA finalized the first national drinking water regulation for PFAS, with legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels for six compounds. PFOA and PFOS each got individual MCLs of 4.0 parts per trillion, and PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and mixtures involving those compounds plus PFBS were covered through individual MCLs and a Hazard Index.3Environmental Protection Agency. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) That gave plaintiffs something they had never had: a hard federal number to point to in court.
The framework was pared back inside a year. In May 2025, the EPA announced its intent to rescind the regulations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and the Hazard Index mixture on the ground that the earlier rulemaking for those four compounds did not follow the process required by the Safe Drinking Water Act. By May 2026, the agency had published a proposed rescission rule.4Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed PFAS Rescission Rule Enforceable federal MCLs now remain only for PFOA and PFOS, which the EPA has confirmed it will keep.5U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Announces It Will Keep Maximum Contaminant Levels for PFOA, PFOS The compliance deadline for water systems, originally April 2029, may be extended by two years under a proposed EPA rule.6Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed PFOA and PFOS Compliance Extension Rule
For litigation, the split is practical. PFOA and PFOS claims still enjoy a clean evidentiary shortcut: a federal standard the defendant’s conduct exceeded. Claims involving the other four compounds lose that advantage and now depend on state standards, toxicological evidence, or risk-based arguments. Several states have adopted their own PFAS limits, and some set thresholds below the federal 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, which can fill the gap for claims filed in those jurisdictions. Water systems that detect elevated levels but have not yet hit the compliance deadline sit in an awkward spot, but plaintiffs suing upstream polluters do not need to wait for the compliance deadline to pass. Contamination above the MCL can support a tort claim regardless of whether the water system has been formally found out of compliance.
CERCLA Exposure and the Enforcement Discretion Line
The EPA’s 2024 designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA took effect in July 2024 and remains in place as of April 2026. That designation lets the federal government compel cleanups and recover remediation costs from parties responsible for releases.7U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Designation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) as CERCLA Hazardous Substances Private parties can also use CERCLA’s contribution framework to shift remediation expenses onto other responsible polluters, opening a secondary litigation channel between co-polluters at shared sites.
The CERCLA label alarmed municipalities, airports, farms, and water utilities that handled PFAS products without manufacturing them. The EPA responded with an enforcement discretion policy stating that it does not intend to pursue community water systems, publicly owned treatment works, municipal landfills, publicly owned airports, local fire departments, or farms where biosolids were applied.8Environmental Protection Agency. PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA Enforcement is directed at “major PRPs”: companies that manufactured PFAS, used PFAS in their manufacturing processes, or operated federal facilities where contamination occurred.
That discretion governs only what the EPA chooses to do. It does not stop private suits, and it does not prevent a chemical manufacturer sued under CERCLA from attempting third-party claims against, say, a municipal airport that used AFFF. The EPA’s policy tries to blunt that risk by calling for settlement agreements with major PRPs to include waivers of the right to sue the protected categories. Whether those waivers fully shield passive receivers from contribution claims is largely untested.
The AFFF MDL and the Water System Settlements
MDL No. 2873, pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, has consolidated over 10,000 cases involving tens of thousands of plaintiffs who allege that AFFF containing PFOA and PFOS contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports, and industrial sites.1United States District Court District of South Carolina. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation
The MDL has produced two landmark class action settlements for public water systems. 3M agreed to pay up to $12.5 billion, with final court approval in March 2024.93M. 3M Settlement with Public Water Suppliers to Address PFAS in Drinking Water Receives Final Court Approval DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva agreed to a combined $1.185 billion.10Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation Together, roughly $13.6 billion is available for testing, filtration, and related infrastructure.
The 2026 claim deadlines are hard. Phase 2 systems must file for baseline PFAS testing compensation by January 1, 2026, under both settlements. Treatment and cost claims against the DuPont fund are due by June 30, 2026, and against the 3M fund by July 31, 2026. Systems that miss these windows risk losing access to the funds, a real concern for smaller utilities with limited administrative capacity.
Personal Injury Bellwethers and the Causation Fight
Individual personal injury claims within MDL 2873 are at an earlier stage. The court has been working to seat bellwether trials, with the first focused on kidney cancer. A tentative October 2025 trial date was postponed, and most observers expect defendants to settle the initial personal injury cases before trial to avoid jury verdicts that could set unfavorable precedent.
The pretrial phase has been dominated by fights over scientific evidence. The court scheduled “Science Days” to evaluate the admissibility of expert testimony linking PFAS exposure to specific cancers under the Daubert standard. If plaintiffs’ experts survive those challenges, the settlement calculus shifts in their favor. Many cases rely on findings from the C8 Science Panel, a research body established under an earlier DuPont settlement that studied PFOA exposure in communities near a West Virginia facility. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified PFOA as a human carcinogen in 2023 and PFOS as a possible human carcinogen the same year, and research has found elevated risks of kidney cancer and testicular cancer among individuals with high PFOA or PFOS exposure, with suggestive evidence on breast and thyroid cancer.11National Cancer Institute. PFAS Exposure and Risk of Cancer Even so, cases have been dismissed where plaintiffs could not build a complete causal chain from the defendant’s conduct through to the contamination that reached them.
Theories Beyond Personal Injury
Property damage claims give owners near contaminated sites a path to recovery without proving anyone got sick. The question is whether the defendant’s activities released chemicals that reached the property and caused measurable financial harm through diminished value, remediation costs, or stigma. Causation is often easier here than in a cancer case because the exposure-to-disease link is not at issue.
Medical monitoring claims seek funding for ongoing health surveillance for people who have been exposed but are not yet diagnosed. The theory supports regular blood testing and screening at the polluter’s expense. Not every state recognizes medical monitoring as a standalone cause of action, and some reject suits based on increased risk without actual injury. In a notable 2026 development, an Ohio court allowed a medical monitoring class action to proceed with potential certification of a class of all Ohio residents in the Hardwick case, then sought appellate review of its own decision given the scope of what it had authorized.
Consumer protection cases target manufacturers and retailers of cosmetics, personal care products, waterproof apparel, and food packaging over undisclosed PFAS or “clean” and “natural” marketing. Standing has been the threshold issue. Courts have dismissed claims where plaintiffs could not tie their testing data to the specific product they purchased, while letting cases proceed with product-specific analytical results. In 2025, the Southern District of New York allowed fraud-based and consumer protection claims to go forward against Colgate-Palmolive, finding that label promises paired with plausible chemical allegations met the reasonable-consumer standard at the motion-to-dismiss stage. In California, Proposition 65 notices targeting PFAS surged to 271 in 2025, up from a few dozen in 2023. The FDA’s December 2025 report that 51 distinct PFAS appear in 1,744 cosmetic formulations adds further ammunition, though no federal prohibition on intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics currently exists.2U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Authorized Uses of PFAS in Food Contact Applications
Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rule
PFAS-related health conditions can take years or decades to appear, and state statutes of limitations for personal injury and property damage claims can run as short as two years. In most jurisdictions, plaintiffs can invoke the discovery rule, which starts the clock when they discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, both the harm and its connection to PFAS exposure. Many cases are won or lost here before the merits are reached. A plaintiff who knew about contamination years ago but waited to file may face a time-bar argument even if the cancer diagnosis is recent. A plaintiff with no way of knowing about PFAS in the water until testing results became public can have a strong discovery-rule argument even if the exposure happened decades earlier.
Insurance Coverage Disputes
Behind the main litigation, defendants and their insurers are fighting a parallel war. Companies look to their Commercial General Liability policies for defense and indemnification. Insurers invoke pollution exclusion clauses.
Courts are split. Some jurisdictions limit pollution exclusions to “traditional environmental pollution” such as smokestack emissions and chemical spills into waterways, and find that PFAS exposure through consumer products or firefighting foam falls outside that scope. A federal court in North Carolina, affirmed by the Fourth Circuit, held that a hazardous materials exclusion did not bar coverage for PFAS claims involving direct contact with AFFF. Other jurisdictions read the exclusions broadly. A Georgia federal court emphasized the “broad reach” of the term “pollutants” in that state’s case law and sided with the insurer. The outcome depends on the law of the state where the policy was issued and where the claim arose, and for companies with multistate operations the same policy language can produce opposite results.