AFFF Lawsuit Updates
Last updated:
The AFFF firefighting foam cases are in an odd place. Billions have already been paid out, and not one dollar of it went to a person with cancer. All of that money settled claims by water utilities over cleaning up contaminated supplies.
The claims by people who got sick are the whole remaining story, and they have been stuck. The first test trial was cancelled and no new date has been set.
If you worked around firefighting foam, or drank water that turned out to be contaminated, and you were later diagnosed with cancer, you can ask for a free case review. Whether that history supports a claim depends on your diagnosis, how you were exposed, and how long ago it happened. Pick the one that fits:
Free and no obligation. Deadlines are set by your state and can run from the date of diagnosis. Submitting a review request does not create an attorney-client relationship.
This page is general legal education, not legal advice, and it reports on litigation that is still moving. Nothing here evaluates any individual reader’s claim or creates an attorney-client relationship.
Where the AFFF Litigation Stands Now
The federal proceeding, In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, sits before Judge Richard M. Gergel in the District of South Carolina. It was consolidated in 2018 and is now one of the largest active MDLs in the country. The September 2026 federal court report puts it at 15,264 pending cases, against roughly 19,840 ever docketed.
The shape of that number has changed. The docket surged in late 2025, when the court opened a short window for unfiled cases, and it has been close to flat since. July stood at 15,244, August at roughly 15,246, September at 15,264. New injury cases are still arriving, and water contamination matters are still closing out, which is why the pending and total figures move in different directions.
Firefighter, military, or airport worker with a PFAS-linked diagnosis? Claims are still being filed, and deadlines run on state law tied to diagnosis rather than to when the exposure happened.
Check Whether You May QualifyWhere the Billions Already Paid Went
Every large AFFF settlement announced so far went to public water systems, to pay for cleaning PFAS out of drinking water. This is the part of the litigation headlines get wrong most often, so it is worth being precise about who was paid.
3M agreed to pay up to roughly $10.3 billion over thirteen years to public water suppliers. DuPont, Chemours and Corteva agreed to a package of about $1.185 billion for the same class of claimant, approved in February 2024. Further utility settlements followed from Tyco, BASF and Carrier. Taken together these are among the largest environmental settlements in United States history.
Every one of them is an infrastructure reimbursement deal. The money funds water treatment and remediation, and it was paid to utilities. Those settlements have their own official notice site at pfaswatersettlement.com, which is the place to look if the question is about a water system rather than a diagnosis. Claims by people diagnosed with cancer or thyroid disease sit on a separate track, which remains open, unsettled, and still waiting for its first trial.
What has happened recently
- , a firefighter gear case moved forward. Firefighters in Connecticut say the PFAS in their turnout gear, the jackets and pants they wear into fires, got into their bodies through their skin and by breathing it in or swallowing it. A federal judge in Connecticut ruled that more than 20 companies, including 3M, DuPont and Honeywell, must face their lawsuit. The judge found the firefighters can ask for money and for medical monitoring, meaning ongoing checkups, even if they have no symptoms yet. Their unions can seek damages too. The gear named in the complaint includes 3M’s Scotchlite reflective trim, DuPont’s Kevlar, and gear made by Honeywell. This is a separate case from the AFFF foam litigation in South Carolina. It was filed in June 2024 as a proposed class action, and whether it can go forward as a class is a later decision.
- The first injury trial still has no date. A test trial was set for October 20, 2025 and was to be a kidney cancer case. In August 2025 the court took it off the calendar, explaining that a large number of cases had not been filed yet and many of those had not been vetted. It opened a filing window that closed on September 5, 2025, and as of September 2026 no replacement date has been set.
- , the second group of test cases moved. Both sides were due to put forward candidates for the next bellwether group, covering thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis. Case-specific discovery on the selected cases continues.
- Through mid-2026, the court kept its structure in place. Judge Gergel extended the lawyer leadership teams on both sides while the second group of test cases moved forward. That is a court getting ready for trials rather than winding down.
- 2026, a fifth company settled on the water side. Carrier resolved claims connected to Kidde-Fenwal, with some money set aside for PFAS plaintiffs. It made no difference to the injury cases.
- June 2025, a hearing on thyroid and liver cancer. The court set aside a day for expert presentations on whether AFFF causes those two conditions, going beyond the four illnesses in the original test group.
- How the test group was built. A 2024 order limited the first round of test cases to four conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis. Kidney cancer was chosen to go first and is still widely seen as the strongest of the four.
Why a Trial Date Is What Everything Waits On
Courts handling thousands of similar cases pick a few to try first. Lawyers call them bellwether trials. The point is to put a number on what a case is worth, because until a jury decides one, nobody knows.
That is why the cancelled October 2025 date is more than a scheduling note. A trial on the calendar is what usually pushes both sides toward a settlement, and a year on there is still nothing on the calendar to push with. That leaves the companies more room than the people suing would like.
Lawyers following the case expect a broad settlement for the injury claims in 2026 or 2027, once the first trials produce results. All of that starts with a date being set. For how this works generally, see bellwether trials and how mass torts work.
Your Filing Deadline Runs on Its Own Clock
This is the part worth acting on. Filing deadlines for injury claims are set by state law and usually run from the date of diagnosis. That clock runs on its own, whatever the utilities settled for. If a diagnosis is recent, timing is normally the first thing a lawyer looks at.
What to watch from here
- Whether a new injury trial date is set, and whose case goes first.
- How the court rules on which expert evidence is allowed for each illness.
- Whether thyroid and liver cancer join the four conditions already being tried.
- The first sign of a broad settlement for the injury claims, none of which has been reached so far.
- Whether filings pick up again. The count has been close to flat since the September 2025 window closed.
- EPA action on PFAS in drinking water, which shapes the wider picture.
How This Updates Page Fits With the Main AFFF Page
The main AFFF foam exposure page covers who was exposed, which diagnoses are involved, and what records tend to matter. That material changes slowly. This page tracks docket movement and trial scheduling, which change often. The broader PFAS picture sits on PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuit Update, and deadlines are covered state by state on PFAS Lawsuit Statute of Limitations by State.
Case counts, settlement figures, and court schedules reported here reflect public reporting available on the date above and should be confirmed against the docket before being relied on.
Sources
- Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Pending MDLs — the monthly report the pending and total case counts for MDL 2873 come from, posted on the first business day of each month.
- District of South Carolina, Case Management Order No. 36 in MDL 2873 — entered the week after CMO 35, and describes the terms CMO 35 set for filing and bringing the personal injury cases.
- District of South Carolina, AFFF MDL frequently asked questions — the court’s own page on how cases are filed directly into the MDL.
- District of South Carolina, AFFF MDL forms — the plaintiff fact sheets and related forms the court requires.
- Reuters, “3M, DuPont must face Connecticut firefighters’ lawsuit over ‘forever chemicals’” (September 15, 2026) — the ruling on the Connecticut firefighter turnout gear case described above.
- Official AFFF public water system settlements site — the four water settlements that received final approval from Judge Gergel, which are the payments described above.
Figures and dates above should be confirmed against the original sources.
Related Lawsuit Topics
AFFF Foam Exposure
Firefighter and military claims, and what records matter.
PFAS Water Contamination Update
The wider PFAS litigation beyond firefighting foam.
PFAS and Kidney Cancer
The diagnosis selected to go first in the bellwether pool.
PFAS and Testicular Cancer
The second condition in the original bellwether group.
PFAS Deadlines by State
Filing periods, and why they usually run from diagnosis.
Bellwether Trials
Why the first verdict decides what everything else is worth.
Find Out If You May Have a Case
If you worked with AFFF foam as a firefighter, in the military, or at an airport or industrial site, a free case review may be worth it. The same applies if you drank water the foam contaminated. It is aimed at people later diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, or another linked condition, and it can tell you whether that history fits a claim.
Free and no obligation. Lawsuit Center is not a law firm and submitting a request does not create an attorney-client relationship.
