Forever chemicals per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) found in firefighting foam have been at the center of tens of thousands of lawsuits throughout the U.S. since 2018.
Firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, local governments, and unions have all filed lawsuits. They claim exposure to forever chemicals in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) causes numerous types of illnesses and contaminated water systems.
So far, chemical and foam manufacturers, including 3M, Tyco Fire Products, and DuPont, have agreed to pay over $14 billion in settlements for cities to perform environmental cleanup. Many claims are worth millions, like the recent $10 million Tyco settlement over PFAS contamination in Wisconsin, but personal injury claims are yet to be resolved.
As local governments remove PFAS from public water systems thanks to settlements, individuals harmed from using or being exposed to the foam at work are still waiting for justice.
Thousands of Claims, Years of Delays
As of July 2026, there are more than 15,000 plaintiffs in the AFFF firefighting foam multidistrict litigation (MDL).
In addition to first responders, some of the plaintiffs live(d) near airports and training facilities – places the foam contaminated surrounding land and groundwater. Others are family members who lost loved ones to health effects linked to PFAS exposure.
With kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and other illnesses allegedly caused by firefighting foam, the slow-moving litigation has been frustrating for victims and families. It’s led many to wonder why the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits are taking so long. While the answer isn’t simple, there are reasons for the delays, and ultimately, cases may end up stronger.
What’s Happening with the AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuits?
The original bellwether trial for the PFAS firefighting foam MDL had been set for October 2025 but was taken off the docket and hasn’t been rescheduled. Combined with the fact that these cases were consolidated into multidistrict litigation back in 2018, the frustration among plaintiffs is understandable. But there are several reasons for the delay.
The following explains what’s happening in the AFFF firefighting foam litigation.
Individual Case Requirements
There are over 15,000 plaintiffs in the MDL with different occupations, varying levels of PFAS exposure, and numerous medical conditions. Because of this, an enormous amount of work is taking place behind the scenes, all of which has to happen before any case in the AFFF firefighting foam litigation enters a courtroom.
The judge has instructed attorneys that each plaintiff is required to provide key documentation:
- Medical records
- Proof of diagnosis
- Employment history
- Exposure information
- Military records (if applicable)
The documentation helps verify claims before trial, ensuring all the relevant information that determines their validity is collected, organized, and ready to be presented. It also helps with selecting bellwether cases.
Firefighting Foam Bellwether Trial Selection
The federal court overseeing the AFFF firefighting foam MDL has spent months organizing evidence and narrowing claims for a distinct purpose: deciding which cases are strong enough and best represent the larger group to become the first test cases.
Decisions surrounding bellwether trials typically impact settlement negotiations; they show both sides how strong their evidence and arguments are, and the level of compensation that juries may award to others.
While dates have not yet been set, the individual cases that will represent kidney cancer and testicular cancer plaintiffs have already been decided. Now, the next round of selections is underway.
In July, proposals were submitted for bellwether cases involving plaintiffs who developed thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis claimed to be caused by AFFF firefighting foam.
The Daubert Hearing for AFFF Lawsuits
Another reason for the delay relates to expert testimony, which will be the next major scientific battle in the AFFF firefighting form MDL.
Before juries hear evidence that PFAS-contaminated foam caused plaintiffs’ illnesses, expert evidence is presented to the judge in what’s called a Daubert hearing.
During the Daubert hearing, the judge will determine if the proposed scientific opinions from medical experts are relevant and reliable enough to be used at trial. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that their experts rely on accepted scientific methods when concluding that work-related PFAS exposure can cause specific health effects.
The hearing allows expert evidence to be challenged, and the judge determines what testimony during bellwether trials is allowed to be included (and what isn’t).
What happens during the Daubert hearing will impact more than 15,000 veterans, airport workers, firefighters, and other first responders diagnosed with illnesses after exposure to PFAS in firefighting foam.
So, while delays make it seem like the AFFF litigation has stalled, in reality, the opposite is true. And the outcome of upcoming evidentiary rulings often shapes settlement negotiations long before most lawsuits ever reach trial.
Firefighter Turnout Gear Lawsuits Gain Traction
The legal battles don’t end there. 3M and Dupont are also facing lawsuits involving turnout gear – the protective outfit worn by firefighters, airport workers, and military personnel. Local governments, individuals, and unions in a dozen states claim that turnout gear contains PFAS that’s absorbed through the skin, causing cancers and other health conditions.
While 3M and other manufacturers had hoped to have cases dismissed, they’re moving forward. Given research has shown that firefighters are at an increased risk of cancer compared to the general population, and turnout gear may be a source of PFAS exposure, more lawsuits are expected to be filed.
As cities clean up their water systems and the MDL progresses, a movement is underway to find alternatives to and even ban the use of AFFF firefighting foam and turnout gear with PFAS. Anyone who thinks they or a loved one developed cancer or another condition from PFAS exposure should speak with an experienced attorney to discuss their legal options.
