AFFF and PFAS Firefighting Foam Litigation: MDL 2873 Status

Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) is a firefighting foam used for decades at airports, military bases and industrial sites. Its PFAS content, chiefly PFOS and PFOA, is the subject of MDL 2873, a federal multidistrict proceeding with more than 15,000 pending actions. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the MDL in 2018 and assigned it to Judge Richard M. Gergel in the District of South Carolina. Class settlements with 3M and with DuPont, Chemours and Corteva, covering public water systems rather than individuals, received final approval in 2024. Claims by firefighters, service members and residents alleging personal injury from exposure remain unresolved by any global settlement, and no court has decided that AFFF exposure caused any individual’s disease.

What AFFF is and what the plaintiffs allege

The JPML described AFFF as a foam used to extinguish liquid fuel fires, and recorded that plaintiffs allege releases of AFFF containing PFOS or PFOA contaminated groundwater near airports, military bases and industrial sites where the foam was used. The District of South Carolina’s MDL page states that plaintiffs generally allege contamination of groundwater near such sites and seek relief for personal injury, medical monitoring, property damage or other economic losses.

The proceeding covers several claim categories: the cost of testing and treating drinking water, personal injury and medical monitoring claims by firefighters and nearby residents, and property damage and remediation claims by governments and property owners. The article on how mass tort litigation works explains how a proceeding of this shape is organized, and how an MDL differs from a class action sets out why the two mechanisms resolve different parts of it.

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the record. The JPML consolidated AFFF claims in the District of South Carolina before Judge Gergel, and its September 1, 2026 statistics report lists 15,264 actions pending in MDL 2873 and 19,840 filed in total. 3M entered a class settlement of public water system drinking water claims on June 22, 2023 and disclosed a pre-tax charge of approximately $10.3 billion in its Form 8-K. The EPA published its PFAS Strategic Roadmap on October 18, 2021 and finalized a rule on April 19, 2024 designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law; it also finalized a drinking water regulation for six PFAS in April 2024.

Alleged, not decided. The claims remain claims. The JPML transfer order records the plaintiffs’ allegations about toxicity, groundwater migration and what the manufacturers knew and warned; it does not find those allegations true. 3M states that its agreement is not an admission of liability, and Chemours, DuPont and Corteva stated that they deny the allegations and reserve all defenses. No court has entered a general determination that AFFF exposure caused any individual plaintiff’s illness.

The public water system settlements

The settlements that have received final approval resolve drinking water claims brought by public water systems. They do not resolve personal injury claims and do not compensate individuals for illness. The figures below are the parties’ own descriptions of the agreements.

• 3M: up to a present value of $10.3 billion, payable over 13 years, with a total nominal range of $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion. Payments run from 2024 through 2036. Final approval on March 29, 2024.
• Chemours, DuPont and Corteva: $1.185 billion to a water district settlement fund, announced as an agreement in principle on June 2, 2023. Chemours stated it would contribute about $592 million, DuPont about $400 million and Corteva about $193 million.
• Tyco and BASF: the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee states that the Tyco settlement is for $750 million and the BASF settlement for $316.5 million.

The settlement administration website lists court deadlines for each agreement and warns that putative class members have received spam notices; rely on that site and the court docket rather than unsolicited mail.

Where the claims stand procedurally

MDL 2873 is captioned In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation and sits in the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, before Judge Richard M. Gergel. The MDL was established in 2018; the court issued its first case management order on January 2, 2019 and held the initial status conference on February 25, 2019. Consolidation covers pretrial proceedings only.

The personal injury track has not settled, and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee states that AFFF-related litigation falling outside the water system agreements continues. The JPML listed 15,264 actions still pending as of September 1, 2026.

Key dates

• 2018: The JPML establishes MDL 2873 in the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel (JPML; Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee).
• January 2, 2019: The court issues Case Management Order No. 1 (District of South Carolina).
• October 18, 2021: EPA announces its PFAS Strategic Roadmap (EPA).
• June 2, 2023: Chemours, DuPont and Corteva announce an agreement in principle to contribute $1.185 billion (Corteva).
• June 22, 2023: 3M enters a class settlement of public water system drinking water claims and records a pre-tax charge of approximately $10.3 billion (3M; SEC Form 8-K).
• March 29, 2024: The District of South Carolina grants final approval to the 3M settlement (3M).
• April 19, 2024: EPA finalizes the rule designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances (EPA).
• September 1, 2026: The JPML reports 15,264 actions pending in MDL 2873 (JPML).

What this does not establish

Nothing in the record decides whether AFFF exposure caused any individual’s illness. The approved settlements resolve the drinking water claims of public water systems and contain no finding of liability; 3M has stated its agreement is not an admission of liability, and the other defendants have denied the allegations. The EPA’s regulatory actions designate two chemicals and set drinking water standards; they are not adjudications of any person’s injury. A class settlement binds only the class it defines, so readers should look at the settlement class definition and the time limits that apply to injury claims in the relevant jurisdiction. Exposure litigation of this kind has run for decades in related contexts, including asbestos and mesothelioma claims.

Frequently asked questions

Have the AFFF lawsuits been settled?

Only in part. Class settlements with 3M, DuPont, Chemours and Corteva, plus settlements with Tyco and BASF, cover public water system drinking water claims. The 3M and DuPont settlements have final approval. Personal injury claims remain unresolved by any global settlement.

How much will individuals receive from these settlements?

The approved water system settlements are not individual compensation programs. They fund testing, treatment and remediation for public water systems. Individual injury claimants are not class members, and no figure for individual recovery can be derived from them.

Which court is handling the federal AFFF cases?

The District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, before Judge Richard M. Gergel, as MDL No. 2873. The court’s MDL page, the settlement administration site and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee site publish orders, deadlines and settlement documents, and the official docket is available through PACER.

Where can I check PFAS health information?

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the CDC, publishes public information on PFAS exposure, health effects, testing and reducing exposure, describing the state of the science rather than any legal claim.

Sources

1. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Transfer Order” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
2. U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina: “MDL: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2873)” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
3. Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, AFFF MDL No. 2873: “Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2873” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
4. AFFF MDL Settlement Administration: “Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2873): Settlement Information” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
5. 3M Company: “3M Resolves Claims by Public Water Suppliers, Supports Drinking Water Solutions for Vast Majority of Americans” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
6. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: “3M CO Form 8-K filed June 22, 2023” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
7. 3M Company: “3M Settlement with Public Water Suppliers to Address PFAS in Drinking Water Receives Final Court Approval” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
8. Corteva, Inc.: “Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva Reach Comprehensive PFAS Settlement with U.S. Water Systems” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: “PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA’s Commitments to Action 2021-2024” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: “Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes Critical Rule to Clean up PFAS Contamination to Protect Public Health” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
11. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, CDC: “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
12. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending (September 1, 2026)” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)

CollectiveClaim.us publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.