Product Liability
3M Combat Arms Earplug Settlement: What the Record Shows
A factual look at the 3M Combat Arms Earplug litigation: the $6.0 billion settlement, how claims were registered, and the federal MDL that is still open.
On this page
Something in this article wrong, out of date, or missing its source? Send the editorial desk a note.
The Combat Arms Earplug litigation against 3M and its subsidiary Aearo Technologies ended in a settlement rather than a court judgment. 3M announced on August 29, 2023 that it had reached an agreement with court-appointed negotiating plaintiffs’ counsel to resolve the claims, under which the company would contribute $6.0 billion between 2023 and 2029. The company reported on March 26, 2024 that, as of the settlement’s final registration date, more than 99 percent of claimants had registered to participate. The consolidated federal proceeding, MDL No. 2885, still appeared as an active docket on the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s October 1, 2026 statistics report, which listed 2 actions now pending out of 391,239 actions filed in total. No court has decided that the earplugs caused any individual’s hearing loss.
What the proceeding is
The Panel’s statistics report identifies the federal proceeding as In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2885, before Judge M. Casey Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida, with the master docket 3:19-md-2885. The docket lists an earliest filing date of January 25, 2019 and a transfer date of April 3, 2019.
The products at issue are Combat Arms Earplugs sold or manufactured by Aearo Technologies and by 3M. In a release dated June 9, 2023, 3M referred to veterans among those with an interest in the outcome. The claims are product-liability allegations about the earplugs. The documents reviewed here contain no court finding that the earplugs were defective or caused any individual’s injury, and 3M has stated the opposite of an admission: in announcing the agreement it said the products “are safe and effective when used properly.”
What is established vs. what is alleged
Established by the documents reviewed here: the identity of the federal proceeding, its court, judge, docket number and transfer date, and the Panel’s pending and historical action counts (JPML statistics report of October 1, 2026); and the settlement’s announced terms, participation figures and registration date as 3M stated them in its own news releases. A company release is a company statement, not an independent finding, and is treated as secondary here.
Alleged, and not decided: that the earplugs were defective, that they failed to protect the hearing of the service members who used them, and that Aearo or 3M failed to warn users or misrepresented the product. Those are the claims asserted in the litigation. In announcing the agreement, 3M stated that it “is not an admission of liability.” The documents reviewed here record no court finding of liability, and no finding of causation for any individual.
How the settlement was structured, and where the claims stand
3M announced the agreement on August 29, 2023, describing it as intended to resolve the claims in the Florida multidistrict litigation and in the coordinated state court action in Minnesota, as well as potential future claims. Under the terms 3M described, the company would contribute a total of $6.0 billion between 2023 and 2029, structured to include $5.0 billion in cash and $1.0 billion in 3M common stock. 3M said it would record a pre-tax charge of approximately $4.2 billion in the third quarter of 2023, representing what it called the $5.3 billion pre-tax present value of the contributions net of an existing accrual of about $1.1 billion.
The claims were resolved by registration and release rather than by a trial of the merits. 3M said the final registration date was March 25, 2024. On March 26, 2024 it reported that, out of more than 293,000 claims, more than 249,000 claimants had registered to participate and more than 41,000 claims had been dismissed by the courts administering the agreements, and that it expected participation to exceed 99.9 percent once the submitted registrations were processed and validated.
Aearo’s separate chapter 11 filing did not proceed. 3M said on June 9, 2023 that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana had granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the bankruptcy filing, and that Aearo was assessing its options for appeal. That release also said 3M and Aearo would continue to pursue appeals raising evidentiary and legal issues from earlier bellwether trials, and that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals had recently heard the appeals of initial trial verdicts. The documents reviewed here do not state the outcome of those appeals. 3M added that it was pursuing insurance recovery from its carriers to offset part of the payments, through a lawsuit filed in Delaware and arbitration proceedings.
Key dates
- January 25, 2019: earliest action in the docket was filed (JPML statistics report, docket listing).
- April 3, 2019: the Panel transferred the actions to the Northern District of Florida, creating MDL No. 2885 (JPML statistics report).
- June 9, 2023: 3M said the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Aearo’s bankruptcy filing, and that the Eleventh Circuit had recently heard appeals from initial trial verdicts (3M release).
- August 29, 2023: 3M announced the agreement to contribute $6.0 billion between 2023 and 2029, stating that it was not an admission of liability (3M release).
- January 15, 2024: 3M said all remaining wave plaintiffs had agreed to participate, and that it had accelerated a $253.1 million payment to on or before January 31, 2024 (3M release).
- January 29, 2024: 3M said participation was on track to exceed the 98 percent threshold by the final registration date of March 25, 2024, and that it had elected to pay $1.0 billion in cash instead of stock (3M release).
- March 26, 2024: 3M reported that, as of the final registration date, more than 99 percent of claimants were participating, with more than 249,000 of more than 293,000 claims registered (3M release).
- October 1, 2026: the Panel listed MDL No. 2885 with 2 actions now pending and 391,239 actions filed in total (JPML statistics report).
What this does not establish
Nothing in the documents reviewed here shows a court finding that the earplugs were defective, that they failed to protect anyone’s hearing, or that Aearo or 3M is liable to any claimant. The settlement was announced, and the claims were resolved through registration and release; 3M’s own statement is that the agreement “is not an admission of liability.” The participation figures and the $6.0 billion total are 3M’s statements about its own agreement, and the documents reviewed do not include a court order approving the agreement as a class settlement.
The Panel’s action counts are docket counts. The October 1, 2026 report does not describe the subject matter of the 2 actions still pending, or how many individuals those actions involve. Nothing here is legal advice, and nothing here should be read as a statement about whether any particular person has a claim.
Frequently asked questions
Did 3M settle the Combat Arms Earplug lawsuits?
Yes. 3M announced on August 29, 2023 that it had reached an agreement with court-appointed negotiating plaintiffs’ counsel, under which it would contribute $6.0 billion between 2023 and 2029. On March 26, 2024 the company reported that more than 99 percent of claimants were participating as of the final registration date.
Can new claims still be registered in the settlement?
The final registration date described in 3M’s January 29, 2024 release was March 25, 2024, and none of the documents reviewed here describes a later registration window. The Panel’s October 1, 2026 report still lists 2 actions pending in MDL No. 2885, but it does not say what they are. Anyone asking about an individual claim would need to check with the court or the party handling it.
Was this a class action settlement?
The documents reviewed here describe a settlement reached with negotiating plaintiffs’ counsel that resolved claims by registration and release, not a certified class settlement with a fairness hearing. An MDL is a consolidated pretrial proceeding in which each plaintiff keeps an individual claim; the background guide on MDLs and class actions explains the difference.
Did 3M admit the earplugs were defective?
No. 3M’s announcement stated that the agreement “is not an admission of liability” and that the products at issue “are safe and effective when used properly.” The documents reviewed here record no court finding of defect, causation or liability.
Is MDL No. 2885 still open?
On the Panel’s statistics report dated October 1, 2026 it appears among the active litigations, with 2 actions now pending against 391,239 actions filed in total. Related coverage on this site includes the Johnson & Johnson talc litigation and the acetaminophen autism litigation, alongside the product liability section.
Sources
- U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District, October 1, 2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
- 3M Company (company news release): “3M Announces Combat Arms Settlement” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
- 3M Company (company news release): “3M Reinforces Preparedness to Defend Combat Arms Earplug Litigation Docket” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
- 3M Company (company news release): “Combat Arms Earplug Settlement Achieves Another Milestone with Participation of All Wave Plaintiffs” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
- 3M Company (company news release): “Combat Arms Earplugs Settlement Set to Exceed 98% Participation Milestone” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
- 3M Company (company news release): “Combat Arms Earplugs Settlement Moves to Final Resolution” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
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.