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 the first was filed in 2018.
Firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, local governments, and unions have all taken legal action. They claim exposure to forever chemicals in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) caused cancers and other illnesses and have 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 work to remove PFAS from public water systems thanks to high-value 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 were more than 15,000 plaintiffs in the AFFF firefighting foam multidistrict litigation (MDL).
In addition to first responders and military personnel, 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 because of them.
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 the dangerous product cases were consolidated into multidistrict litigation back in 2018, the frustration among plaintiffs is understandable.
The reason for the delay isn't due to a lack of progress. Instead, there are specific steps to how these cases progress, such as collecting and organizing documentation for each individual plaintiff. Other factors include preparing for bellwether trial selection and the Daubert hearing.
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)
Documentation of this kind helps verify claims before trial, ensuring all the relevant information that confirms 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.
While new dates have not been set since the October 2025 trial was postponed, the individual cases that will represent kidney cancer and testicular cancer plaintiffs have 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 PFAS in 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 dangerous product MDL.
Before juries hear evidence that firefighting foam contaminated with PFAS 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 thousands of people diagnosed with cancer and other 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. The process and outcome of 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. The lawsuits were consolidated into a separate MDL than the firefighting foam litigation.
Plaintiffs include local governments, individuals, and unions in a dozen states that allege PFAS in turnout gear are absorbed through the skin, causing cancers and health issues. And on September 12, 2026, there was another influx of plaintiffs that joined the fight.
While the case was added to the existing turnout gear litigation, a new track was created. The 28 plaintiffs, which include municipalities, fire districts, volunteer fire departments, and other entities, are seeking compensation for economic losses related to testing and removing PFAS contamination from their facilities and equipment, and replacing turnout gear with a safer alternative.
3M and other manufacturers had hoped to have cases dismissed, but 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.
Like many other dangerous product and toxic exposure mass torts in the U.S., changes are already in place and others are underway to protect workers from being harmed by AFFF foam and the gear they wear.
As cities clean up their water systems and these cases progress, many states have begun requiring the use of PFAS-free products. Several have banned or proposed new laws to highly restrict use of firefighting foam containing the forever chemicals.
