PFAS MDL Update 2026: Where the Litigation Stands
Last updated:
MDL 2873 — the AFFF Products Liability Litigation — is one of the largest and most complex mass tort cases in U.S. history. With tens of thousands of plaintiffs, billions in settled municipal claims, and active personal injury proceedings, the litigation is at a critical juncture. Here is a thorough status update as of early 2026 for plaintiffs and those considering filing.
What Is MDL 2873?
MDL 2873, formally styled as In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, is a federal Multidistrict Litigation consolidated before U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel in the District of South Carolina (Charleston). It was established by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in 2018 to consolidate the growing number of federal lawsuits related to PFAS contamination from AFFF firefighting foam.
The MDL encompasses two primary types of claims:
- Municipal/water system claims: Public utilities suing AFFF manufacturers for the cost of filtering PFAS from contaminated drinking water sources.
- Personal injury (PI) claims: Individuals — primarily firefighters, military personnel, and residents of contaminated communities — who developed cancer or other health conditions after PFAS exposure.
The municipal and personal injury tracks have proceeded on different timelines and have produced different outcomes.
The Municipal Settlement Track: What Resolved
The municipal water system claims largely reached resolution through a series of landmark settlements:
3M's $10.3 Billion Settlement (2024): 3M agreed to pay $10.3 billion over 13 years to resolve claims by public water utilities seeking infrastructure reimbursement. This settlement was approved by Judge Gergel in May 2024 and covered the vast majority of municipal claims in MDL 2873. This settlement explicitly excluded personal injury claims.
DuPont/Chemours/Corteva Settlement Package (2023-2024): DuPont and its spinoffs agreed to a package totaling up to $1.185 billion to resolve municipal water system claims. Like the 3M settlement, this covered utilities, not individuals with health conditions.
These settlements did not resolve personal injury claims. They did not compensate individuals who developed cancer. They were infrastructure reimbursement deals. Individuals with PFAS-related health conditions must pursue the personal injury track, which is entirely separate.
The Personal Injury Track: What's Active
As of early 2026, the AFFF personal injury track is in active litigation before Judge Gergel. Key developments:
Bellwether Proceedings
The court has worked through a series of bellwether proceedings to test how juries respond to PFAS personal injury claims. Bellwether trials serve as test cases — they don't resolve all claims, but they signal how the evidence plays with juries and what damages ranges look like. The outcomes of bellwether proceedings are the primary driver of global settlement negotiations in the PI track.
General Causation Rulings
A central battleground in PFAS personal injury litigation is whether the scientific evidence is sufficient to establish that PFAS causes the specific cancers alleged. Judge Gergel has issued important rulings on which expert witnesses are permitted to testify on general causation and which methodologies are considered reliable under the Daubert standard. These rulings directly affect which health conditions can be litigated and how strong the causation evidence is for each condition.
Defendant Posture
With the municipal settlements largely resolved, the major defendants — particularly 3M and DuPont — have pivoted their litigation resources to the personal injury track. Both defendants have mounted vigorous challenges to plaintiff expert testimony and causation theory. 3M's agreement to stop manufacturing PFOS and PFOA was incorporated into the municipal settlement and does not resolve PI liability.
Continuing Case Filings
New personal injury cases continue to be filed into MDL 2873. As awareness of PFAS-cancer links grows — particularly following the IARC's 2023 carcinogen classifications — more individuals with qualifying diagnoses and documented exposure histories are seeking legal representation. The MDL docket continues to grow.
What's Happening With Smaller AFFF Manufacturers
3M and DuPont are the highest-profile defendants, but MDL 2873 also includes smaller AFFF manufacturers who produced and distributed foam products: Tyco/National Foam, Kidde-Fenwal, Buckeye Fire Equipment, Chemguard, and others. Settlement negotiations with these defendants are proceeding separately from the major corporate settlements. Some smaller defendants have reached partial or complete settlements on the municipal track; PI negotiations continue.
What This Means for Plaintiffs
If you are already represented in the MDL: Your attorney is monitoring bellwether outcomes and settlement discussions. Your primary responsibilities are keeping your Plaintiff Fact Sheet accurate, staying in contact with your attorney, and preserving all relevant records.
If you have not yet filed: The personal injury track is open. New cases can still be filed. However, statutes of limitations are state-specific and typically run two to three years from the date you knew or should have known your health condition was linked to PFAS exposure. If you have a qualifying diagnosis and documented exposure history, consult an attorney promptly.
Expected timeline: Global PI settlements in mass torts of this complexity typically follow several years of bellwether proceedings. Experienced PFAS attorneys expect meaningful settlement activity in the personal injury track in 2026-2027, though litigation timelines are always subject to change based on court proceedings, appeals, and negotiation dynamics.
Non-MDL PFAS Claims
Not all PFAS personal injury claims are consolidated in MDL 2873. Claims involving industrial PFAS contamination unrelated to AFFF — contamination from manufacturing plants, chemical facilities, or other non-firefighting-foam sources — may be litigated in state courts or separate federal proceedings. If your exposure was primarily from a non-AFFF industrial source, your claim may not fall under MDL 2873 but may still be viable in another venue.
The PI Track Is Active. Your Deadline Is Running.
If you have PFAS exposure and a qualifying health diagnosis, don't wait. A free consultation will tell you whether your situation qualifies for the active MDL proceedings.
Check Your Eligibility Free →Related Resources
- 3M PFAS Settlement: What It Does and Doesn't Cover
- AFFF Firefighting Foam Claims: Firefighter Guide
- Military Base PFAS Exposure
- How to File a PFAS Contamination Claim
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. MDL status and settlement information is current as of April 2026 and subject to change. Consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.