Pulling the Threads of the ‘Complicated Patchwork of Federal and State Law’ around PFAS Class Action Lawsuits

In the last few years, the health and environmental effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (also known as “forever chemicals”) have become better understood. These chemicals, noted for their durability and resistance to temperature changes, have become a central point of concern due to their persistence in the environment and the negative health effects associated with some of them. Because of this, class action lawsuits surrounding PFAS have seen a significant rise across the United States.

Some of the more notable recent lawsuits have involved Hershey, Prime Hydration, and other food product manufacturers for allegedly including PFAS in their packaging above health effect levels identified by federal agencies. Other lawsuits are aimed at PFAS in aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), often used by military and civilian firefighting and emergency responder operations. AFFF has been linked to cancer and other significant adverse health and environmental degradation. The multi-district litigation (MDL) concerning AFFF products, centralized in South Carolina under Judge Richard M. Gergel, is particularly noteworthy. Recent settlements, including a $316.5 million agreement with BASF and a $750 million settlement involving Tyco Fire Systems, reflect a trend towards resolving these disputes through significant financial compensation for water monitoring and filtration efforts to mitigate PFAS contamination.

These developments confirm that PFAS-related legal challenges are complex and navigating them can cause serious headaches for corporations trying to understand their potential liability. To better understand the current landscape surrounding PFAS class action lawsuits and how companies can protect themselves from litigation, 3E sat down with Lynn L. Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., in Washington, D.C.