Active Litigation, Accepting Clients

Firefighters, veterans, and others diagnosed with cancer after PFAS exposure from firefighting foam may qualify for a free case review.

Defendant3M, DuPont, Chemours, Tyco Fire Products, and others
MDLMDL 2873
CourtD.S.C., Judge Richard M. Gergel
Filing DeadlineVaries by state; deadlines often run from when you knew or should have known your illness could be linked to PFAS.

Get a Free Case Review

AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) is a firefighting foam used for decades by the military, airports, fire departments, and industrial facilities to suppress fuel fires. AFFF contains PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, often called “forever chemicals” — which do not break down in the environment or the human body. In 2023, the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency (IARC) classified PFOA, a key PFAS chemical, as a Group 1 human carcinogen, the same category as asbestos and tobacco. The Department of Defense required its installations to stop using AFFF as of October 2024.

Why Are AFFF Lawsuits Being Filed?

Plaintiffs allege that 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Tyco Fire Products, and other manufacturers knew for decades that PFAS in their foams accumulated in human blood and posed serious health risks, but failed to warn firefighters, service members, and communities. The personal injury claims focus on six conditions recognized in the litigation: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, thyroid disease, liver cancer, and ulcerative colitis. The manufacturers deny the allegations.

MDL 2873: Where the Litigation Stands

Federal AFFF lawsuits are consolidated in MDL 2873 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel — one of the largest MDLs in the country, with more than 15,000 personal injury cases pending as of mid-2026. The water contamination side of the litigation has largely been resolved: 3M agreed to pay up to $10.3 billion and DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva $1.185 billion to public water systems. Those settlements paid utilities, not individuals — not a dollar went to people diagnosed with cancer. The personal injury track remains active and unresolved. A pool of 28 bellwether cases across the four initial injury categories is in case-specific discovery; the first personal injury trial, previously set for October 2025, was postponed after a surge of new filings, and a new date has not been announced. Many observers expect meaningful personal injury settlement activity in 2026 or 2027, though nothing is guaranteed.

Who Was Exposed?

The highest-exposure groups include career and volunteer firefighters who handled or trained with AFFF, military service members stationed at bases where the foam was used, airport and industrial workers, and people who lived near bases or training sites where PFAS leached into drinking water.

Who May Qualify?

You may qualify for a free case review if you were exposed to AFFF — through firefighting, military service, airport or industrial work, or contaminated drinking water — and were later diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer or disease, liver cancer, or ulcerative colitis. Service records, employment records, and your medical diagnosis are the core evidence. Statutes of limitations vary by state and often run from when you knew or should have known your illness could be linked to PFAS, so acting promptly protects your claim.

Injuries Linked to This Litigation

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

Do You Qualify?

Exposed to AFFF firefighting foam through firefighting, military service, airport or industrial work, or contaminated drinking water
Later diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer or disease, liver cancer, or ulcerative colitis

Get a Free Case Review

Name(Required)
Which product were you exposed to, and what injury or diagnosis followed?
Consent(Required)

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Submitting a form does not create an attorney client relationship.