AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit (2026): Status & Claims

Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) is a firefighting foam that contains PFAS chemicals, and tens of thousands of people and public water systems allege that it caused cancer or contaminated drinking water. These claims are centralized in a federal multidistrict litigation, and as of June 2026 the litigation is active. This page explains the claims, the science, and the current status neutrally.

This page is part of our Mass Tort & Product Liability overview.

What AFFF is and the alleged harm

Aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, is a specialized firefighting foam developed to smother flammable-liquid and fuel fires by forming a film over the fuel. It was used for decades at military bases, airports, fire-training facilities, refineries, and by fire departments. Many AFFF formulations contained PFAS, a large family of synthetic chemicals that includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), often called forever chemicals because they break down very slowly and accumulate in the body and the environment. The lawsuits generally fall into two groups: personal-injury claims by firefighters, military service members, airport workers, and nearby residents who allege that AFFF exposure caused cancer or other illness, and water-contamination claims by public water systems and others alleging that AFFF use polluted groundwater and drinking water. This is a description of the allegations, not a finding that AFFF caused any individual's illness.

Note: These are allegations being tested in court. A lawsuit reflects what a plaintiff claims, not a final determination of liability, and outcomes can differ from case to case.

What the science and regulators say

Federal agencies have studied PFAS extensively, and the science is still developing. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reports that epidemiological evidence suggests associations between PFAS exposure and several health effects, including kidney and testicular cancer for PFOA, along with increased cholesterol, changes in liver enzymes, lower antibody response to some vaccines, pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia, and small decreases in birth weight. ATSDR also cautions that scientists are still learning about exposures to PFAS mixtures and that additional research may change current understanding. In April 2024, EPA issued the first enforceable national drinking-water standards for PFAS, setting maximum contaminant levels of 4.0 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS and a non-enforceable health-based goal of zero, reflecting EPA's view that there is no level of those chemicals in drinking water without risk of health effects. These findings describe associations and regulatory limits; they do not establish that AFFF caused any specific person's illness.

Note: Agency findings describe population-level associations and regulatory limits, not proof that any product caused any individual's injury. The PFAS science continues to evolve.

The status of the AFFF litigation (as of June 2026)

Most federal AFFF cases are consolidated in In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the cases on December 7, 2018. The litigation has two main tracks. First, the court has granted final approval to class settlements that resolve public water-system claims for PFAS contamination, including agreements with manufacturers such as 3M and the DuPont-related companies, to fund testing and treatment of drinking water. Second, a separate personal-injury track for individuals alleging cancer and other illnesses remains in pretrial proceedings; the first personal-injury bellwether trial has not yet been held, as an October 2025 trial setting was vacated and a new date had not been set as of mid-2026. Judicial Panel statistics show tens of thousands of actions pending in the MDL, a figure that has grown substantially as personal-injury filings increased. As of June 2026 there is no global settlement resolving the individual personal-injury claims.

Who may be involved

The people generally involved in this litigation include firefighters, military service members, airport and refinery workers, and others who were repeatedly exposed to AFFF, as well as residents whose drinking water was allegedly contaminated by PFAS from AFFF use, and the public water systems that serve them. On the personal-injury side, plaintiffs typically allege a PFAS-linked diagnosis such as kidney or testicular cancer following significant exposure. Whether any particular person may have a claim depends on the specific facts, including the nature and duration of exposure, the diagnosis and its timing, and the law of the relevant state. Exposure or living in an affected area alone does not establish a claim. Nothing here suggests that everyone exposed has a claim or that any outcome is assured.

Deadlines and why they matter

Claims like these are subject to statutes of limitations, which are legal deadlines to file suit. These deadlines vary by state and by the type of claim, and many states measure the deadline from when a person knew or reasonably should have known that an injury may be linked to PFAS or AFFF, a concept sometimes called the discovery rule. Because the deadline depends on your state and your facts, there is no single national filing deadline, and this page does not state any individual's deadline. Missing a deadline can permanently bar a claim, so people who believe they may be affected often act promptly rather than waiting. A licensed attorney in the relevant state can evaluate which deadline applies to a specific situation.

How to evaluate your options

If you are trying to understand your legal options, the appropriate step is to speak with a licensed attorney who handles this type of case. An attorney can assess the facts, explain the applicable law in your state, and advise whether you may have a claim; this page cannot do that. It can help to gather any records you have, such as documentation of where and how you were exposed to AFFF, employment or service records, water-testing results if your supply was affected, and medical records confirming a diagnosis and its date. Most mass tort and personal injury attorneys offer a free, confidential consultation, and many work on a contingency basis, meaning a fee is generally owed only if there is a recovery. A consultation creates no obligation to file.