What Is the AFFF Firefighter Foam Lawsuit?

Official sources: U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina | Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR/CDC) | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Litigation status reviewed: August 2026

What is AFFF?

Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) is a type of firefighting foam historically used to extinguish highly flammable liquid-fuel fires.

AFFF has been used in settings such as:

• Military bases
• Airports
• Firefighting training facilities
• Petrochemical facilities
• Industrial sites
• Ships and aviation facilities

EPA explains that PFAS-containing AFFF has been widely used to extinguish Class B fires involving highly flammable or combustible liquids, including fuel fires.

Certain AFFF formulations historically contained or broke down into per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including PFOA and PFOS.

PFAS are sometimes called "forever chemicals" because many are highly persistent and can remain in the environment for long periods.

What is the AFFF lawsuit about?

Plaintiffs in the federal litigation generally allege that manufacturers produced and sold PFAS-containing firefighting foams despite knowing or having reason to know about potential health and environmental risks.

Claims vary by plaintiff but may include allegations involving:

• Product liability
• Failure to warn
• Defective design
• Negligence
• Environmental contamination
• Personal injury
• Medical monitoring
• Property damage

The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina states that plaintiffs allege AFFF containing PFOA and PFOS contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports, and industrial sites and caused personal injuries, a need for medical monitoring, property damage, or other economic losses.

Defendants dispute liability and causation.

Is there an AFFF MDL?

Yes.

Federal AFFF cases are centralized in:

In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2873

U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina

The cases are assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The JPML''s August 3, 2026 report lists:

• 15,246 pending actions
• 19,822 total actions

in MDL 2873.

The federal court separately notes that the MDL has involved more than 10,000 associated cases and tens of thousands of plaintiffs since it began.

Who has filed AFFF lawsuits?

The litigation includes several different types of plaintiffs.

Individuals alleging personal injury

These claims may involve:

• Firefighters
• Military personnel
• Airport workers
• Industrial workers
• People who lived near contaminated sites
• People who allege exposure through contaminated drinking water

Public water systems and municipalities

Water providers have brought claims alleging that PFAS contamination created substantial costs for testing, filtration, remediation, and drinking-water treatment.

Property owners and communities

Some claims involve alleged property damage, contamination, or economic losses.

These categories are legally distinct. A settlement resolving public-water-system claims does not automatically resolve individual cancer or personal-injury claims.

How can someone be exposed to PFAS from AFFF?

Exposure can occur in several ways.

Direct occupational exposure

Firefighters and other workers may have come into contact with AFFF while:

• Fighting fuel fires
• Conducting firefighting drills
• Testing fire-suppression systems
• Cleaning equipment
• Handling or disposing of foam

Contaminated drinking water

Repeated use of AFFF can allow PFAS to move into soil and groundwater.

EPA identifies contaminated drinking water as an important route of PFAS exposure and also recognizes firefighting as an occupation that may involve elevated exposure.

Environmental exposure

PFAS can persist in:

• Groundwater
• Surface water
• Soil
• Sediment
• Dust

The route, duration, frequency, and amount of exposure can all matter when evaluating possible health effects.

What health conditions have been studied in connection with PFAS?

This requires careful distinction between scientific evidence and legal allegations.

ATSDR states that epidemiological research suggests associations between exposure to certain PFAS and health effects including:

• Increased cholesterol
• Lower antibody response to some vaccines
• Changes in liver enzymes
• Pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia
• Small decreases in birth weight
• Kidney cancer
• Testicular cancer

For kidney and testicular cancer, ATSDR specifically identifies an association with PFOA exposure.

ATSDR also emphasizes that scientists are still learning about the health effects of exposure to mixtures of different PFAS.

What injuries are being developed in the AFFF MDL?

The federal court has developed groups of personal-injury cases involving several alleged conditions.

Court orders in the MDL have addressed bellwether discovery involving:

• Kidney cancer
• Testicular cancer
• Thyroid disease
• Ulcerative colitis

A December 2025 court order confirms that the litigation''s bellwether process included plaintiffs alleging thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis.

Earlier court materials also identify kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis as conditions addressed through the court''s personal-injury case-management process.

These litigation categories should not be interpreted as a government finding that AFFF causes every one of these conditions.

Does PFAS exposure cause kidney or testicular cancer?

ATSDR states that epidemiological evidence suggests an association between increased exposure to PFOA and both kidney and testicular cancer.

That is stronger than saying every person exposed to AFFF will develop cancer.

Health risk can depend on:

• Which PFAS were involved
• Exposure level
• Duration
• Frequency
• Route of exposure
• Individual health factors
• Other exposures

For an individual lawsuit, plaintiffs generally must still establish that the exposure at issue caused or substantially contributed to their particular injury under applicable law.

Is every AFFF product the same?

No.

AFFF is a category of firefighting foam, not a single product.

Different manufacturers produced different formulations over many years.

Foams may have contained different:

• PFAS compounds
• Concentrations
• Surfactants
• Additives
• Manufacturing formulations

That means the exact product, manufacturer, use period, and exposure history may matter in an individual case.

Which companies are involved in the AFFF litigation?

The MDL has involved numerous defendants associated with the manufacture or sale of AFFF or PFAS-related products.

The court''s early proceedings identified major foam manufacturers including:

• 3M
• Tyco Fire Products
• Chemguard
• National Foam
• Buckeye
• Kidde

The list of parties has evolved over time, so current court records are the best source for identifying defendants in a particular case.

Is the AFFF lawsuit a class action?

No.

MDL 2873 is multidistrict litigation, not one nationwide class action.

In an MDL:

• Individual lawsuits remain separate claims.
• Similar federal cases are coordinated before one judge.
• Discovery can be managed efficiently.
• Scientific and expert issues can be addressed across groups of cases.
• Individual claims may later settle, go to trial, be dismissed, or return to their original courts.

A firefighter with kidney cancer and a municipal water system seeking remediation costs are therefore not pursuing the same type of claim simply because both are part of MDL 2873.

What is happening with personal-injury cases in MDL 2873?

The court has been developing groups of individual personal-injury claims through a bellwether process.

That process has included discovery involving plaintiffs alleging kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis.

Bellwether proceedings allow the parties and court to examine representative cases more closely.

They can help test:

• Exposure evidence
• Medical evidence
• Expert testimony
• Causation theories
• Legal defenses
• Potential jury reactions

A bellwether case does not automatically determine the outcome of every other plaintiff''s claim.

What is a bellwether trial?

A bellwether trial is a test case selected from a larger group of similar lawsuits.

Bellwethers can help the parties understand:

• How strong particular evidence may be
• How juries respond to competing scientific arguments
• Which injuries or exposure histories may present stronger or weaker cases
• Whether broader settlement discussions make sense

Even when one bellwether plaintiff wins or loses, other plaintiffs retain their own claims.

Have AFFF cases settled?

Some major parts of the broader AFFF/PFAS litigation have been resolved through settlement, particularly claims involving public drinking-water systems.

But that does not mean all AFFF litigation has settled.

As of August 3, 2026, the JPML still reported 15,246 pending actions in MDL 2873.

The MDL continues to include individual personal-injury claims.

Consumers should therefore distinguish between:

• Public-water-system settlements
• Environmental claims
• Individual personal-injury claims

A settlement in one category does not establish a payout for another.

Is there an AFFF personal-injury settlement?

There is no single universal settlement resolving all individual AFFF personal-injury claims as of August 2026.

The active JPML docket confirms that thousands of cases remain pending.

Any eventual compensation framework could depend on factors such as:

• Diagnosis
• Exposure history
• Duration and intensity of exposure
• Medical evidence
• Causation
• Age
• Damages
• Applicable state law
• Defendant
• Individual case circumstances

Claims online about guaranteed AFFF settlement values should not be treated as established compensation.

How much is an AFFF lawsuit worth?

There is no verified universal AFFF payout.

Potential case value can depend on factors including:

• Type of disease
• Severity of injury
• Length of PFAS exposure
• Strength of exposure documentation
• Medical treatment
• Prognosis
• Lost income
• Medical costs
• Other possible causes of the condition
• Applicable law
• How the litigation ultimately resolves

A settlement involving a public water system or municipality is not a valid benchmark for an individual firefighter''s cancer claim.

What evidence may matter in an AFFF claim?

Evidence can include:

Exposure records

• Military service records
• Fire department employment records
• Training records
• Airport employment records
• Worksite records
• Records identifying contaminated water sources
• Residence history

Product evidence

• AFFF manufacturer
• Foam formulation
• Product records
• Procurement records
• Fire-suppression-system records

Medical evidence

• Diagnosis records
• Pathology reports
• Oncology records
• Surgical records
• Treatment history
• Records showing when symptoms began

Other evidence

• Witness statements
• Coworker testimony
• Drinking-water records
• Environmental testing
• PFAS exposure assessments

Because some exposures occurred decades ago, reconstructing the history can be one of the most important parts of an individual case.

Can Veterans have AFFF claims?

Potentially.

The U.S. military historically used PFAS-containing AFFF, particularly for fuel-fire suppression and firefighting training.

A Veteran who alleges an injury from AFFF exposure may potentially have more than one path depending on the circumstances.

These can include:

• A product-liability claim against manufacturers
• VA disability compensation for a condition connected to military service
• Other benefits or claims depending on the facts

A VA disability claim and a product-liability lawsuit are separate legal processes with different requirements.

Is AFFF still used?

Use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam is being phased down or replaced in many settings.

EPA states that fluorine-free firefighting foams are increasingly being adopted as PFAS-containing AFFF is phased out.

EPA also continues to issue guidance on destruction and disposal of PFAS-containing materials, including AFFF. Its updated 2026 interim guidance specifically addresses AFFF among PFAS-containing materials requiring appropriate management.

What is the difference between AFFF and PFAS?

These terms are related but not interchangeable.

AFFF

A type of firefighting foam used primarily to suppress flammable-liquid fires.

PFAS

A large family of synthetic chemicals used in many commercial, industrial, and consumer applications.

Certain AFFF products historically contained PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS or compounds that could break down into them.

PFAS exposure can therefore come from sources other than firefighting foam.

Is AFFF the same as firefighter turnout gear?

No.

Firefighting foam and firefighter protective clothing are separate products.

AFFF litigation generally concerns alleged exposure to PFAS-containing foam and environmental contamination caused by its use.

Separate litigation has alleged PFAS exposure involving firefighter turnout gear.

The fact that both may involve PFAS does not make them the same lawsuit.

Is there a deadline to file an AFFF lawsuit?

Yes.

Personal-injury and product-liability claims are subject to statutes of limitation.

Deadlines can depend on:

• State law
• Date of diagnosis
• When exposure became known
• When the alleged connection between exposure and injury reasonably could have been discovered
• Other individual circumstances

The existence of an active MDL does not eliminate applicable filing deadlines.

Common misconceptions

Myth: The billion-dollar PFAS water settlements mean firefighters and cancer plaintiffs have already settled too.

Reality: Public-water-system claims and individual personal-injury claims are different categories within the broader AFFF litigation. Thousands of cases remain pending in MDL 2873, including personal-injury claims. A settlement involving contaminated drinking-water systems does not establish an individual cancer payout.

Why this matters

AFFF litigation is unusually complicated because it combines several different issues:

• Firefighter and military exposure
• Contaminated drinking water
• Environmental cleanup
• PFAS toxicology
• Cancer and other alleged injuries
• Public-water-system claims
• Individual product-liability claims

That complexity can make headlines about "PFAS settlements" misleading.

For someone trying to understand a possible personal-injury claim, the most useful questions are much more specific:

What product or contaminated source were you exposed to? For how long? Which PFAS were involved? What condition was diagnosed? What does the medical evidence show?

Those facts matter far more than a headline settlement number from an unrelated category of the litigation.