AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

Our lawyers are no longer accepting new AFFF firefighting foam cases at this time. This page provides the latest updates on the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits, the current status of MDL 2873, and our estimates of potential settlement amounts for plaintiffs with AFFF cancer and disease claims.

Aqueous film-forming foam, commonly called AFFF or firefighting foam, has been used for decades to suppress fuel fires. The problem is that many AFFF products contain PFAS chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS. These chemicals do not break down easily in the human body or the environment, which is why they are often called “forever chemicals.”

Scientific research has linked long-term PFAS exposure to serious diseases, including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, and ulcerative colitis. People most often exposed include firefighters, airport workers, military personnel, industrial workers, and residents who drank water contaminated by PFAS from fire training sites, military bases, airports, or industrial facilities.

All federal AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 2873, in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel. These cases are not technically class actions for personal-injury plaintiffs. Each injured person maintains an individual claim, but the lawsuits are coordinated in a single federal court for discovery, motions, bellwether preparation, and settlement pressure.

There is still no global settlement for AFFF personal injury and wrongful death claims. The prior multibillion-dollar public water settlements did not resolve the individual cancer and disease claims brought by firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, and exposed residents. Those personal injury cases remain the next major phase of the litigation.

Latest AFFF Class Action Lawsuit Updates (2026)

The AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits remain one of the largest active mass torts in the country. The official July 1, 2026 JPML report lists MDL 2873 with 15,244 pending actions and 19,819 total historical actions. That action count does not tell the whole story because many filings involve multiple plaintiffs or bundled claims, but it confirms what everyone already knows: this litigation is enormous.

Settlement pressure remains high, but the timeline is frustrating. The first personal injury bellwether trial was originally expected in 2025 and was supposed to focus on kidney cancer. That trial date was vacated, and as of early July 2026, no new personal injury bellwether trial date has been firmly placed back on the calendar. That missing trial date is a problem for plaintiffs because trial dates create leverage.

Still, the cases are moving. Discovery continues, expert sequencing continues, and the court has issued newer case management orders dealing with the wave of filed and unfiled claims. The strongest personal injury claims remain kidney cancer and testicular cancer cases with clear occupational or drinking water exposure evidence. Thyroid cancer, thyroid disease, liver cancer, and ulcerative colitis claims remain part of the litigation, but settlement value will not be the same across all disease groups.

Below are the current updates.

 June 28, 2026: Bellwether Trial Date Still Missing From the Calendar

The AFFF litigation is still moving, but the missing trial date is a real concern for plaintiffs. The first personal injury bellwether trial was originally expected in October 2025 and was supposed to involve a kidney cancer claim. That date was later vacated, and the court has not yet set a replacement date.

Trial dates create settlement pressure. Defendants can talk about mediation, discovery, and case management all day, but real leverage usually comes when a jury date is locked in. Right now, the court is still managing discovery and expert work, but victims do not have the clear trial timeline they need.

Until a new bellwether date is set, settlement pressure on the remaining defendants is not as strong as it should be. That does not mean settlement is unlikely. It means the defense has more breathing room than the plaintiffs want them to have.

June 16, 2026: AFFF Case Count Remains Massive

The AFFF firefighting foam MDL remains one of the largest active MDLs in the country. The official July 1, 2026 JPML report lists 15,244 pending actions in MDL 2873, for a total of 19,819 historical actions. The broader plaintiff count is higher because many filings can involve multiple plaintiffs or claims.

The size of the MDL cuts both ways. For plaintiffs, it shows how widespread PFAS exposure and contamination really are. For defendants, it creates real financial risk. Trying thousands of individual cancer and disease cases is not a realistic long-term strategy.

But the number of claims also makes settlement harder. A global settlement has to account for different diseases, different exposure pathways, different defendants, different state laws, different proof problems, and different levels of injury. That is why AFFF is harder to settle than many simpler product liability MDLs.

June 11, 2026: Personal Injury Settlement Still Has Not Happened

There is still no global AFFF personal injury settlement. The public water settlements were a huge part of the PFAS story, but those deals did not compensate individual victims with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, or ulcerative colitis.

That is where the frustration comes from. The defendants have already shown they are willing to settle large PFAS claims when the risk becomes too great. But firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, and exposed residents with cancer or serious disease are still waiting.

Our expectation remains that settlement pressure will continue to build. But any precise prediction on timing is speculation until the parties either announce a deal or the court puts a bellwether trial back on the calendar.

June 7, 2026: Strongest AFFF Claims Remain Kidney and Testicular Cancer Cases

The strongest AFFF lawsuits remain kidney cancer and testicular cancer cases with clear exposure evidence. That usually means firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, or people with documented contaminated drinking water exposure near a military base, airport, fire training facility, or other PFAS source.

That does not mean other injuries have no value. Thyroid cancer, thyroid disease, liver cancer, and ulcerative colitis claims remain part of the litigation. But settlement values will not be equal across all disease categories.

When a global settlement finally comes, expect the settlement grid to rank claims by diagnosis, exposure strength, duration of exposure, age, medical history, and proof of damages. The cases with the strongest science, longest exposure, and clearest medical records should be valued higher.

June 3, 2026: Where the Litigation Stands Now

Everyone wants these cases to settle at this point. If you are a victim and frustrated, thousands of people in one of the largest MDLs in history feel the same way.

The settlement problem is that AFFF and PFAS lawsuits are not just personal injury cases. They also involve long-term environmental contamination, government sites, municipal water systems, remediation costs, property damage, and public health obligations. That mix makes settlement more complicated than simply writing checks to injured individuals.

AFFF personal injury cases often involve firefighters and military personnel with cancer claims. PFAS litigation more broadly also involves municipalities, water authorities, states, and property owners seeking billions of dollars for cleanup and remediation. The defendants are trying to manage all of that exposure at once.

We still believe a global settlement for personal injury claims is likely. The first wave may focus on the strongest kidney cancer and testicular cancer cases. But it is taking longer than victims deserve.

April 11, 2026: Plaintiffs Stay in Federal Court

Judge Gergel denied South Carolina’s motion to remand its PFAS contamination case against 3M, holding that 3M could keep the case in federal court under the federal officer removal statute.

The state tried to avoid the AFFF issues by disclaiming claims tied to firefighting foam and focusing on other PFAS sources. The court held that 3M plausibly alleged that military specification AFFF made for the federal government was at least part of the contamination story, especially because PFAS from military foam may have mixed with PFAS from non-AFFF products.

The practical takeaway is that plaintiffs cannot always plead around AFFF and force these cases back to state court when 3M can plausibly tie part of the contamination to federally directed military foam. That ruling helps keep more of the PFAS fight inside the federal MDL framework.

January 2026: Our Firm Pauses New AFFF Case Intake

Our law firm is not taking new AFFF firefighting foam cases at this time. The litigation is moving toward a possible settlement structure, and we want to see how the court, the defendants, and settlement leadership handle the next phase before taking on new claims.

If you already have a lawyer, stay in contact with that lawyer. If you do not have a lawyer and believe you have a claim, understand that other firms may still be reviewing AFFF cases. Timing remains important because any settlement process could create cutoffs, deadlines, or proof requirements.

January 2026: Nearly 20,000 Total MDL Actions

By early 2026, the AFFF MDL had nearly 20,000 total actions on the docket. The July 1, 2026 JPML report now lists 19,819 total historical actions and 15,244 pending actions.

The difference between total actions and pending actions matters. Some water contamination cases have been resolved or dismissed after prior settlements. The personal injury claims are still the main unresolved battlefield.

December 11, 2025: Ulcerative Colitis Cases Move Forward

The MDL judge approved the selection of additional ulcerative colitis plaintiffs to proceed into deeper discovery as part of the Group B bellwether process. These cases are important because kidney and testicular cancer have gotten most of the attention, but ulcerative colitis is one of the six disease categories being prioritized in this litigation.

Ulcerative colitis can be life-altering. It can involve chronic pain, bowel damage, medication, surgery, and a higher risk of colorectal cancer. The separate bellwether treatment of ulcerative colitis gives those plaintiffs a more defined path toward trial preparation and settlement leverage.

November 5, 2025: Massive Filing Surge Before Court-Imposed Filing Window Closed

In August and September 2025, Judge Gergel created a filing facilitation window after the court learned that tens of thousands of potential AFFF personal injury claims had not yet been filed. The court directed plaintiffs’ leadership to file cases involving the six core disease categories: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer.

The filing window was designed to bring order to the litigation and prevent unfiled claims from disrupting settlement talks or bellwether preparation. Plaintiffs were allowed to use short-form complaints and, for a limited period, consolidated complaints.

For potential plaintiffs, the lesson remains the same: AFFF claims require documentation. Medical records, diagnosis proof, exposure history, work history, military history, drinking water exposure, and residence history will be critical in any settlement program.

AFFF Linked to Cancer

AFFF, known as aqueous film-forming foam, is a type of foam designed to fight high-intensity fires fueled by gasoline, jet fuel, and other flammable liquids. The active components in many AFFF products belong to the PFAS family, including PFOA and PFOS.

PFAS chemicals resist heat, oil, and water. That is why they worked so well in firefighting foam. But that same durability makes them dangerous. PFAS do not naturally break down, and they can persist in soil, groundwater, surface water, and the human body for years.

Scientific research over the past decade has linked PFAS exposure to serious health risks. The strongest AFFF personal injury claims currently focus on kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, thyroid disease or hypothyroidism, liver cancer, and ulcerative colitis.

Occupational Exposure to AFFF

People who worked in jobs where AFFF was regularly used may have occupational exposure to PFAS. Firefighters are the most obvious group. They used AFFF during real fire responses, training exercises, equipment testing, and foam cleanup.

Military service members are also heavily represented in these cases. AFFF was widely used on military bases, airfields, ships, and fire training areas. Navy personnel were especially vulnerable because AFFF could be used in confined shipboard environments, where fuel fires are a major hazard.

Airport workers, industrial workers, refinery workers, and people who worked at fire training facilities may also have been exposed. Some victims were exposed directly through foam use. Others were exposed through contaminated water near facilities where AFFF was used for years.

Cancers and Diseases Linked to AFFF Exposure

The conditions currently getting the most attention in the AFFF litigation are:

• Kidney cancer
• Testicular cancer
• Thyroid cancer
• Thyroid disease or hypothyroidism
• Liver cancer
• Ulcerative colitis

Other cancers and diseases may be biologically plausible, including prostate cancer, bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But the MDL is focusing settlement and bellwether attention on the disease categories with stronger causation evidence and better litigation posture.

Defendants in AFFF Lawsuits

The AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits name companies that manufactured, sold, distributed, or supplied PFAS-containing firefighting foam and related chemical components. Major defendants have included 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard, Kidde-Fenwal, Honeywell International, BASF, Archroma, Dynax, and others.

The lawsuits allege that these companies knew for decades that PFAS chemicals were persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic, and difficult to remove from the environment. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants continued to sell AFFF without adequate warnings and, in some cases, misled users and regulators about the dangers.

Discovery has been damaging for defendants. Internal documents and public reporting have supported the plaintiff’s argument that manufacturers knew PFAS did not break down and understood the risks long before firefighters and communities were warned.

Settlement Value of AFFF Lawsuits

The settlement for personal injury and wrongful death claims in the AFFF MDL is still pending. So no one can tell you the exact payout structure. But we can make reasonable predictions based on the litigation posture, prior mass tort settlements, disease categories, exposure strength, and the prior PFAS public water settlements.

Any eventual AFFF settlement will likely use a points-based system rather than a simple flat amount. That system will probably evaluate the diagnosis, duration, and intensity of exposure, occupational and military history, evidence of contaminated water, age at diagnosis, severity of illness, medical treatment, and the strength of the proof of causation.

The strongest cases are likely to involve long-term occupational exposure and a diagnosis of kidney cancer or testicular cancer. Those cases may fall into the highest settlement categories. Thyroid cancer, liver cancer, ulcerative colitis, and thyroid disease claims may also have value, but the expected values may vary depending on the quality of the science and the individual proof.

These are predictions, not promises. A severe diagnosis does not automatically create a high-value case if the exposure proof is weak. A strong exposure case may lose value if medical causation is contested. Settlement values will turn on the grid, proof requirements, and how the defendants choose to resolve the litigation.

Moving Past Settlement Tiers: How Would an AFFF Settlement Work?

Our lawyers often discuss settlement tiers because they make the concept easier to understand. But in the real world, an AFFF settlement will likely be more individualized.

A points system would assign value based on several factors. A firefighter with decades of direct AFFF exposure and a diagnosis of testicular cancer would likely receive more points than someone with brief exposure and a less strongly linked condition. A Navy veteran exposed to AFFF in enclosed spaces aboard a ship may score differently from a resident exposed only through drinking water. A plaintiff with clean medical records, strong evidence of diagnosis, and documented exposure should score higher than a plaintiff whose records are incomplete.

A settlement program may also include deductions or disputes over alternative risk factors, latency periods, smoking history, occupational exposures, family history, age, and other medical issues. That is why records matter. The strongest cases will be those that can cleanly prove exposure and diagnosis.

When Will the AFFF Foam Lawsuit Be Settled?

We still believe a global personal injury settlement is likely. But it has not happened yet, and the missing bellwether trial date makes the timing harder to predict.

Defendants have strong reasons to settle. The public water settlements show that major PFAS defendants are willing to pay large sums to avoid the risk of trial. The science is strong for certain disease categories. The docket is too large to try case by case. A bad bellwether verdict could raise the settlement value of thousands of claims.

But plaintiffs also need to be realistic. We predicted a settlement before, and it did not happen as quickly as expected. AFFF is complicated. It involves personal injury claims, public water claims, environmental remediation, state claims, federal contractor defenses, and different defendants with different levels of exposure.

The best answer is that settlement is likely, but timing remains uncertain. The next major pressure point will be either a new bellwether trial date, significant Daubert rulings, or a formal settlement framework.

Who Is Eligible to File an AFFF Lawsuit?

Our law firm is not currently taking new AFFF cases, but the general eligibility criteria are the same. A strong AFFF lawsuit usually requires proof of both exposure and diagnosis.

1. AFFF Exposure: The plaintiff must show regular exposure to PFAS from firefighting foam, usually through firefighting, military service, airport work, industrial fire training, or contaminated drinking water.
2. Qualifying Diagnosis: The plaintiff must have a disease strongly linked to PFAS exposure, such as kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, thyroid disease, or ulcerative colitis.

Exposure proof may come from work history, military records, fire department records, base assignments, training history, residence history, contaminated water data, or product use records. Medical proof requires diagnosis records, pathology reports, treatment records, and sometimes expert review.

What Should AFFF Plaintiffs Do Now?

If you already have a lawyer, stay in contact with that lawyer and make sure your records are complete. If you do not have a lawyer, understand that some firms may still be reviewing claims even though our firm is not currently taking new AFFF cases.

Anyone with a possible AFFF claim should gather the following:

• Medical records showing diagnosis and treatment.
• Pathology reports or biopsy reports.
• Military, fire department, or employment records showing exposure.
• Documents showing residence near contaminated water sources.
• Proof of work at airports, bases, fire training sites, or industrial facilities.
• Any records tying exposure to AFFF firefighting foam or PFAS-contaminated water.

The litigation is moving toward resolution, but not fast enough for victims. The strongest claims will be the ones with the best documentation.