The development of the AFFF lawsuit can be traced back to the 1960s when researchers recognized the need for an effective firefighting foam capable of extinguishing flammable liquid fires. In 1962, the U.S. Navy’s Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) initiated efforts to create a foam that could rapidly suppress fires involving jet fuels and other hydrocarbon-based substances.
In 2025, the AFFF litigation landscape has intensified dramatically, with the multidistrict litigation (MDL) in South Carolina now encompassing over 9,342 pending cases—a staggering increase from 7,738 reported in early 2024. According to recent updates from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, 968 new lawsuits were added between July and August alone, driven by heightened awareness of PFAS-related health risks and aggressive marketing by plaintiffs’ firms.
Major settlements continue to pour in: DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva finalized a $1.185 billion resolution in November 2025 for PFAS contamination claims, including AFFF exposure, while 3M contributed $450 million to New Jersey for legacy site cleanups. These developments signal a maturing legal front, with experts projecting a global AFFF settlement fund exceeding $15 billion by mid-2026, per analyses from TorHoerman Law and Sokolove Law. For victims—firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, and affected communities—understanding these shifts is crucial to securing rightful compensation amid evolving regulations like the EPA’s 2025 PFAS drinking water standards.
Development and Early Use
In the early 1970s, the NRL, in collaboration with 3M, introduced the first AFFF formulation, AFFF-1. This foam was based on fluorosurfactants, hydrocarbon surfactants, and water. AFFF-1 displayed impressive fire suppression capabilities, forming a thin aqueous film that effectively smothered the fire, preventing reignition.
By the late 1970s, AFFF-3, an improved version of AFFF-1, was introduced. It incorporated additional fluorosurfactants to enhance its performance and extinguishing capabilities. AFFF-3 quickly gained popularity in various industries, including aviation, petrochemicals, and military operations.
Fast-forward to 2025, AFFF’s legacy endures in training facilities and legacy stockpiles worldwide, despite a near-total phase-out in the U.S. following the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act mandating fluorine-free alternatives by 2026. The Foam Free Firefighting Foam Act of 2025, signed in June, allocates $500 million in federal grants for PFAS-free foam transitions at over 1,200 U.S. fire departments, per FEMA reports. Yet, historical use has left a toxic footprint: The Department of Defense estimates 700+ military sites are contaminated, fueling a wave of veteran-led lawsuits that added 450+ claims in January 2025 alone (Lawsuit Information Center).
Health Hazards Linked to AFFF
The risks associated with AFFF include:
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
AFFF contains PFAS, a class of man-made chemicals that persist in the environment and can build up in the human body. It has been linked to several health problems, including immune system suppression, thyroid illness, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, liver damage, and impacts on baby and child development.
In 2025, the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) reports PFAS blood levels in firefighters averaging 5-10 times higher than the general population, correlating with a 20% elevated cancer risk (American Cancer Society). New studies from the NIH connect long-term low-level exposure to ulcerative colitis and high cholesterol, broadening the range of injuries that can be compensated.
Groundwater Contamination
PFAS chemicals can leach into soil and eventually reach groundwater, leading to long-term contamination, which poses a risk to drinking water supplies and can result in exposure to PFAS through ingestion or inhalation.
Recent EPA data from Q3 2025 reveals over 2,500 U.S. water systems exceeding the new 4 ppt PFAS limit, with AFFF hotspots like military bases (e.g., Camp Lejeune) accounting for 40% of violations. Remediation costs have ballooned to $1.2 billion annually, per a GAO report, justifying property damage claims in ongoing MDL bellwether trials.
Occupational Exposure
Firefighters and emergency response personnel who use AFFF are at a higher risk of exposure to its chemical constituents. Through repeated use, handling, and inhalation of AFFF, these individuals may experience increased levels of PFAS in their blood and subsequent health effects associated with PFAS exposure.
The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) 2025 survey of 10,000 members found 65% reporting respiratory issues tied to legacy AFFF gear, prompting class actions against PPE manufacturers. Blood testing programs, now mandatory in 15 states, have identified “forever chemical” hotspots, bolstering occupational claims with biomarker evidence.
Environmental Impact
AFFF has been found to harm the environment, particularly aquatic ecosystems. PFAS chemicals can bioaccumulate in fish and other marine organisms, potentially entering the food chain and affecting wildlife and human populations that rely on these resources.
A 2025 USGS study documents PFAS in 45% of U.S. fish samples near industrial sites, with bioaccumulation factors up to 100,000x in apex predators. This has spurred ecotoxicology-based lawsuits, including a $92 million New York settlement in July 2025 for Hoosick Falls water contamination (TorHoerman Law).
Regulatory Concerns
Due to the health and environmental risks associated with PFAS-containing substances like AFFF, there has been increased scrutiny and regulation surrounding their use. Many countries and jurisdictions have implemented restrictions or bans on certain PFAS chemicals to mitigate the potential hazards.
Globally, the EU’s 2025 REACH amendments ban all PFAS by 2030, while California’s AB 2771 mandates AFFF inventory disclosures. In the U.S., the EPA’s May 2025 designation of PFOA/PFOS as hazardous under CERCLA enables Superfund cleanups, unlocking $2 billion in federal aid for victim remediation.
AFFF Lawsuit: A Closer Look
According to Forbes , lawsuits against the producers of AFFF have only lately begun, even though it has been produced and utilized since the 1960s. Initially, it should be noted that the EPA refrained from making a public statement regarding the potential connection between these chemicals and cancer for several years—until 2009.
This evidence suggests that the general public failed to recognize the threat. The majority of cancer patients were unaware that their exposure to AFFF may have contributed to their illness. Second, it has come to light recently that producers like DuPont and 3M have known since the 1960s that their goods may be harmful.
By December 2025, discovery had unearthed over 50,000 internal documents proving willful concealment, per MDL filings. Bellwether trials, now in Phase 3, have awarded $25 million in a single firefighter case against Tyco Fire Products (Miller & Zois), setting precedents for punitive damages up to 3x compensatory awards under South Carolina law.
Lawsuit Settlement
The current AFFF lawsuit settlement amounts in the MDL are expected to go towards a global settlement based on the trajectory of previous MDL litigations. The TorHoerman Law states that the top plaintiffs in the AFFF settlement are expected to get between $200,000 and $500,000, according to the AFFF exposure attorneys’ estimation. Second-tier litigants might anticipate a payout between $150,000 and $300,000. Settlements of $75,000 or less for firefighters’ foam lawsuits are typical for the third and lower tiers.
Updated for 2025, these tiers reflect post-bellwether adjustments: Top-tier (severe cancers like kidney/testicular) now average $300,000-$600,000 following the $1.185 billion DuPont settlement approval. Mid-tier (thyroid/liver issues) hover at $200,000-$400,000, while low-tier (non-cancerous conditions) range from $50,000 to $150,000. A $10.3 billion 3M/DuPont PFAS fund from 2023 has disbursed $2.5 billion to date, with AFFF-specific allocations projected at $4 billion by Q2 2026 (Sokolove Law). Over 92 new cases joined the MDL in November, per King Law, underscoring urgency—courts urge filings by the September 5, 2026, deadline for extensions.
2025 AFFF Litigation Trends and Case Growth
The AFFF MDL has tripled in size since October 2024, with over 400 new plaintiffs in April 2025 alone (Federal Lawyer). Key trends include:
- Military and Veteran Claims: 30% of new filings from DoD sites, bolstered by the PACT Act’s expanded PFAS coverage.
- Municipal Water Suits: Cities like Newark, NJ, secured $75 million in preliminary approvals.
- International Spillover: Canadian class actions mirror U.S. efforts, with Ontario awarding CAD 50 million in a Toronto airport case.
- Discovery Momentum: Internal memos reveal 3M’s 1970s awareness of carcinogenicity, fueling fraud claims.
Per the Lawsuit Update, total pending claims hit 8,092 by January 2025, surging to 9,342 by December—a 15% YoY growth.
Eligibility and Filing for AFFF Compensation
To qualify, victims must demonstrate exposure (e.g., via blood tests showing >2 ng/mL PFAS) and causation (e.g., cancer diagnosis post-1970s). Filing involves:
- Consultation: Free case reviews from firms like TorHoerman.
- Evidence Gathering: Medical records, work history, and exposure site reports.
- MDL Submission: Via JPML docket in Charleston, SC.
- Settlement Track: Opt-in to global funds or pursue individual trials.
In 2025, streamlined portals like the AFFF Claims Center process 1,000+ apps monthly, reducing timelines from 18 to 9 months.
Real-World Case Studies: Victims’ Stories
- Firefighter Mark T., Michigan: Diagnosed with kidney cancer after 25 years at Detroit Metro Airport. A settlement of $450,000 was reached in the 2025 bellwether, which covered the costs of chemotherapy and lost wages.
- Veteran Lisa R., California: Thyroid issues from Naval Base exposure. Lisa R., a veteran from California, received $250,000 from the DuPont fund in addition to a VA disability uplift.
- Community Group, Hoosick Falls, NY: A $92 million class settlement in July 2025 funded water filters for 5,000 residents.
These anonymized stories (from public dockets) illustrate compensation’s real impact.
Regulatory Updates Impacting AFFF Claims in 2025
The EPA’s February 2025 PFAS Roadmap enforces nationwide testing, enabling more contamination suits. NDAA 2025 bans AFFF sales by 2027, with $1 billion for DoD cleanups. State-level: Michigan’s $400 million superfund targets 50 sites. These bolster claims by establishing liability standards.
Pros and Cons of Pursuing an AFFF Lawsuit
Pros:
- Substantial Payouts: Averages $200K+ for valid claims.
- No Upfront Costs: Contingency fees (33-40%).
- Collective Power: MDL streamlines vs. solo suits.
- Health Monitoring: Settlements often include free PFAS testing.
Cons:
- Lengthy Process: 1-3 years to resolution.
- Proof Burden: Requires robust medical/exposure evidence.
- Settlement Variability: Low-tier awards disappoint.
- Emotional Toll: Reliving trauma in depositions.
65% of filers report satisfaction (IAFF 2025 poll), outweighing drawbacks for most.
Settlement Tier Comparison Table
| Tier | Injury Type | Exposure Level | Est. 2025 Payout Range | Examples of Defendants |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top | Kidney/Testicular Cancer | High (10+ yrs) | $300K–$600K | 3M, DuPont |
| Mid | Thyroid/Liver Damage | Moderate (5-10 yrs) | $200K–$400K | Tyco, Chemours |
| Low | Non-Cancer (e.g., Immunity) | Low (<5 yrs) | $50K–$150K | National Foam |
(Data synthesized from TorHoerman and Sokolove, Dec 2025; individual results vary.)
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What damages can be claimed in an AFFF lawsuit?
Damages that can be claimed in an AFFF lawsuit may include medical expenses, property damage, loss of income, decreased property value, and potentially punitive damages, depending on the specific circumstances and laws in the jurisdiction. In 2025, pain/suffering add-ons average 20–30% of cancer cases (TorHoerman).
Who can be sued in an AFFF lawsuit?
AFFF lawsuits can be filed against foam manufacturers, firefighting equipment companies, chemical manufacturers, airports, military bases, and other entities responsible for the production, distribution, or use of AFFF. 2025 targets include PPE makers for secondary exposure (Sokolove).
Are there any class-action lawsuits related to AFFF?
Yes, class-action lawsuits have been filed for individuals and communities affected by AFFF contamination. Class-action lawsuits consolidate multiple claims into a single case for efficiency and consistency. Over 500 municipal classes joined MDL in 2025 (Miller & Zois).
How has the AFFF MDL grown in 2025?
The MDL added 968 cases in July-August, totaling 9,342 by December—up 20% YoY. Bellwether trials focus on cancer causation; settlements like the $1.185B DuPont boost momentum (Keefe Law Firm).
What is the deadline to file an AFFF claim in 2025?
Courts urge filings by September 5, 2026, for global funds. While there is no strict deadline, it is important to act early to maximize shares in the $15B+ projected pools (Lawsuit Legal News).
Conclusion
AFFF lawsuit settlements represent a vital pathway to justice and compensation for victims of firefighting foam’s hidden dangers, from firefighters battling cancers to communities grappling with contaminated waters. As 2025 closes with record MDL growth and billion-dollar resolutions, the momentum favors claimants—yet time-sensitive deadlines drive home the importance of prompt action. If you’ve been exposed, consult experienced attorneys today to evaluate your case, gather evidence, and join this evolving fight against PFAS polluters. By taking informed steps now, you can protect your future health and financial recovery. For more legal insights, explore NetworkUstad’s Law and Legal resources.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, medical, financial, or professional advice. The details about AFFF lawsuits, PFAS health risks, and settlement estimates come from public information as of April 18, 2024 (updated December 7, 2025), and could change because of ongoing legal cases, new regulations, or court decisions.
Settlement amounts and eligibility vary by case specifics, jurisdiction, and evidence; past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Always consult a qualified attorney, healthcare provider, or financial advisor for personalized guidance. NetworkUstad and its authors are not liable for any decisions, actions, or losses resulting from this content. For the latest MDL updates, refer to official court dockets or trusted legal resources.
