Updated May 2026 | 15,222 lawsuits are pending in federal court. 3M paid $10.3 billion. DuPont paid $1.185 billion. Carrier Global paid $730 million. The companies responsible have already paid over $12 billion to settle water contamination claims — and now the individual cancer lawsuits are next. If you or a loved one are a firefighter, military veteran, or airport worker who developed cancer — here is everything you need to know.
For decades, they called it foam. It smothered jet fuel fires in seconds, protecting lives on aircraft carrier decks, at military air bases, and in airport hangars around the world. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam — AFFF — was the gold standard for suppressing the most dangerous class of fires on earth. The military required it. The FAA mandated it at commercial airports. Fire departments across America trained with it routinely.
What the manufacturers knew — and what the people using it didn’t — is that AFFF contained PFAS chemicals (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), often called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the human body or the environment. They accumulate in blood, organs, and tissue over years of exposure. And according to decades of epidemiological research, they cause cancer.
3M knew. DuPont knew. Internal documents revealed in litigation show that both companies had their own research linking PFAS to cancer and reproductive harm — research they allegedly did not share with the public, their customers, or the military personnel who breathed and absorbed these chemicals for careers.
As of April 2026, 15,222 lawsuits are pending in federal MDL 2873 in South Carolina. The companies responsible have already paid over $12 billion in PFAS settlements — primarily to municipalities and water systems whose drinking water was contaminated. The individual cancer claims — from firefighters, military veterans, and airport workers whose bodies absorbed these chemicals directly — are the next phase of this litigation.
What Is AFFF and Why Does It Cause Cancer?
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) is a firefighting agent specifically designed for Class B fires — fires involving flammable liquids like jet fuel, gasoline, and petroleum products. It works by forming a thin aqueous film over the fuel surface, smothering the fire and preventing re-ignition.
AFFF’s effectiveness comes from its surfactant chemistry — and for decades, the most effective surfactants available were fluorosurfactants based on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), both members of the PFAS chemical family.
The cancer mechanism:
PFAS chemicals have several properties that make them biologically dangerous:
Bioaccumulation: PFAS don’t metabolize. Your liver cannot break them down. Your kidneys cannot fully excrete them. They accumulate in blood serum, liver tissue, kidney tissue, and testicular tissue over years and decades of exposure. The longer the exposure and the higher the dose, the higher the body burden.
Endocrine disruption: PFAS compounds interfere with hormonal signaling, particularly thyroid hormone function. The thyroid system regulates metabolism, immune function, and cell growth — disruption of these pathways creates conditions that promote abnormal cell growth.
Immune system effects: Research shows PFAS suppresses certain immune responses that normally identify and eliminate cancerous cells before they become tumors — effectively reducing the body’s own cancer surveillance.
The C8 Science Panel findings: The C8 Science Panel — an independent scientific advisory panel established by DuPont’s own legal settlement — conducted one of the most extensive studies of PFAS exposure and human health in history. They analyzed health data from over 69,000 people in the Ohio River Valley exposed to DuPont’s PFOA contamination. Their findings established “probable links” between PFAS exposure and:
- Kidney cancer
- Testicular cancer
- Thyroid disease
- Ulcerative colitis
- High cholesterol
- Pregnancy-induced hypertension
This science panel was funded by DuPont — meaning the company’s own mandated research established the cancer links now driving the litigation.
The Litigation Status — Where the Cases Stand in May 2026
MDL 2873 — 15,222 Active Cases
U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina | Judge Richard M. Gergel
The AFFF multidistrict litigation is one of the largest active MDLs in the country. As of April 1, 2026, the JPML’s official statistics confirm 15,222 pending actions (with 19,795 total historical filings — many cases were resolved or transferred). The docket continues growing, with hundreds of new cases filed monthly as firefighters and veterans connect their cancer diagnoses to their AFFF exposure history.
The disease track structure:
Judge Gergel organized the AFFF personal injury cases into disease tracks based on cancer type. The kidney cancer track — which has the strongest scientific causation evidence — was first scheduled for a bellwether trial in October 2025. That trial was ultimately delayed as the judge implemented administrative requirements to ensure all filed cases have proper medical and exposure documentation.
As of 2026, the litigation is undergoing what courts call an “administrative reset” — the judge is:
- Enforcing compliance with plaintiff profile forms (CMO 37, filed February 25, 2026)
- Identifying which cases are trial-ready
- Establishing the ulcerative colitis track for expert discovery
- Preparing the kidney cancer track for trial once documentation compliance is confirmed
The significance of the delay: Some plaintiffs and attorneys interpret the trial postponement negatively. The reality is different — the judge’s administrative tightening is preparation for trial, not retreat from it. Cases without proper documentation get dismissed; cases with proper documentation get trial dates. The urgency to file with complete medical records is higher than ever.
The $12 Billion Already Paid — Water Contamination Settlements
Before the individual personal injury trials begin, the same companies are responsible for a staggering amount of already-completed settlements for water contamination:
- 3M: $10.3 billion settlement with U.S. public water systems for PFAS contamination — one of the largest environmental settlements in history
- DuPont / Chemours / EIDP: $1.185 billion to public water suppliers in MDL 2873
- Carrier Global (Kidde-Fenwal): $730 million settlement — $540 million to Kidde-Fenwal and $190 million to PFAS plaintiffs
- Saint-Gobain, Honeywell, 3M (2021): $65 million combined settlement
Total confirmed PFAS/AFFF settlements: Over $12 billion
This $12 billion establishes several things critical to the personal injury cases: the companies had the financial capacity to pay massive settlements; their products did contaminate water and harm people; and they settled rather than go to trial on liability. The same companies now face the next wave of claims — from the people whose bodies, not just their water, absorbed these chemicals.
Who Is Eligible for an AFFF Lawsuit?
The AFFF personal injury litigation focuses on people with direct occupational or environmental exposure to AFFF foam who subsequently developed cancer or serious disease. The strongest cases involve:
Military Service Members and Veterans
The U.S. military was the largest user of AFFF for decades. Navy and Air Force personnel had the most extensive exposure — AFFF was stored, used, and tested at bases across the country and around the world. Specific high-exposure situations include:
- Aircraft crash and rescue training: AFFF was routinely used in live-fire training exercises at military airfields. Navy and Air Force rescue personnel trained with it repeatedly throughout their careers
- Aircraft carrier deck crews: Carrier aviation involves the highest density of aviation fuel fire risk — and therefore the heaviest AFFF deployment — in any military setting
- Military airfield fire departments: Every major military airfield maintained AFFF stocks and conducted regular training
- Hazmat and chemical spill response: Military personnel responding to fuel spills used AFFF as the primary suppression agent
- Base drinking water: Military bases often used AFFF near water supply areas, contaminating the groundwater that base residents — service members and their families — drank for years
Military branches with highest exposure levels:
- U.S. Navy (carrier aviation, naval air stations)
- U.S. Air Force (air bases, aircraft rescue and fire fighting — ARFF)
- U.S. Marine Corps (aviation units, air stations)
- U.S. Army (aviation units, airfields)
- National Guard (aviation units)
Career and Volunteer Firefighters
Municipal, industrial, and airport firefighters who used AFFF during training exercises and actual fire suppression operations have documented occupational exposure. Key exposure contexts:
- Airport firefighting (ARFF — Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting): FAA regulations required AFFF for aircraft rescue operations at commercial airports for decades. ARFF personnel had extremely high per-exposure doses due to proximity and frequency
- Industrial firefighting: Petroleum refineries, chemical plants, and shipyards maintained AFFF stocks for tank farm fires and chemical facility incidents
- Municipal fire departments: Many municipal fire departments trained with AFFF, particularly those serving areas with industrial facilities
- Foam concentrate handling: Personnel who mixed, loaded, and maintained AFFF equipment had skin absorption and inhalation exposure beyond just the foam itself
Airport Ground Workers and Fuel Handlers
Beyond dedicated firefighters, airport ground workers — fuel truck operators, aircraft maintenance personnel, and apron crew at airports where AFFF was used in incidents or drills — have documented exposure claims in the AFFF litigation.
Civilians Near Military Bases and Airports
People who lived near military installations or airports where AFFF contaminated groundwater — and who drank that water for years — have separate claims in the MDL’s water contamination track. These cases are distinct from the occupational exposure claims but are part of the same MDL framework.
Qualifying Cancers and Diseases
The AFFF lawsuit covers the following diagnoses, ranked by the strength of the scientific causation evidence:
Tier 1 — Strongest Evidence (C8 Science Panel confirmed links):
- Kidney Cancer (Renal Cell Carcinoma) — The first disease track scheduled for trial. PFOA and PFOS exposure is associated with significantly elevated kidney cancer risk. Kidney cancer is the primary cancer diagnosis in the first wave of AFFF trial cases
- Testicular Cancer — Among the strongest PFAS-cancer links in the scientific literature. Young men with PFAS exposure history who develop testicular cancer have highly persuasive causation evidence
- Thyroid Disease / Thyroid Cancer — PFAS disrupts thyroid hormone production. Both hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer qualify; cancer cases have higher case values
- Ulcerative Colitis — Inflammatory bowel disease with a confirmed link to PFAS exposure. The ulcerative colitis track is in expert discovery in MDL 2873
Tier 2 — Established Evidence:
- Bladder Cancer — Growing body of epidemiological evidence linking PFAS to bladder cancer
- Liver Cancer (Hepatocellular Carcinoma) — Liver tissue accumulates PFAS; liver cancer link is scientifically supported
- Ovarian Cancer — Emerging evidence from PFAS cohort studies
- High Cholesterol (Hypercholesterolemia) — Confirmed C8 Science Panel link; lower case value than cancer diagnoses but eligible for compensation
Tier 3 — Emerging Evidence:
- Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma — Being added to litigation tracks as evidence develops
- Leukemia — Blood cancers increasingly associated with PFAS in recent literature
- Prostate Cancer — Under investigation; some law firms accepting on a case-by-case basis
- Breast Cancer — Emerging evidence; fewer law firms currently accepting
Settlement Value — What AFFF Cancer Cases Are Worth
No global personal injury settlement has been announced as of May 2026. The water contamination settlements — the $12 billion already paid — were for public utilities, not individual cancer victims. Individual settlement values for AFFF personal injury claims are projected based on:
Disease severity and impact on life expectancy:
| Disease Category | Projected Individual Settlement |
|---|---|
| Kidney cancer, testicular cancer (strong evidence, significant treatment) | $300,000 – $1,000,000+ |
| Thyroid cancer requiring surgery and lifetime hormone replacement | $200,000 – $500,000 |
| Ulcerative colitis with severe, chronic symptoms and hospitalizations | $100,000 – $300,000 |
| Bladder cancer, liver cancer | $200,000 – $600,000 |
| High cholesterol / thyroid disease without cancer | $20,000 – $75,000 |
| Wrongful death from AFFF-linked cancer | $500,000 – $2,000,000+ |
The comparison to C8/PFOA litigation: The 2017 C8 settlement — a previous PFAS litigation against DuPont for Ohio River Valley water contamination — paid roughly $670 million across approximately 3,500 plaintiffs, averaging approximately $191,000 per claim. That settlement involved primarily non-cancer health outcomes. The AFFF personal injury MDL focuses primarily on cancer — which commands significantly higher individual case values.
The asbestos comparison: AFFF litigation is increasingly compared to asbestos litigation — widespread occupational exposure, long latency periods between exposure and disease, systematic corporate concealment of known risks. Asbestos litigation has paid out $100 billion or more over its lifespan. The AFFF litigation’s scale and the documented nature of corporate concealment suggest a similarly substantial long-term payout.
The Defendants — Who Made AFFF and What They Knew
3M Company
3M was the world’s largest manufacturer of PFOS-based PFAS compounds for over 40 years. Internal documents revealed in litigation show 3M researchers identified health concerns associated with PFAS in the 1970s — decades before regulatory action was taken. 3M voluntarily phased out PFOS production in 2002 — the same year its own internal research was disclosed to regulators. The company’s $10.3 billion settlement with water utilities does not resolve the individual personal injury claims.
DuPont / Chemours / EIDP
DuPont manufactured PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid, also called “C8”) for decades at its Washington Works plant in West Virginia. Internal DuPont documents — obtained through litigation that produced the C8 Science Panel — showed company scientists had documented health concerns about PFOA exposure in animals and humans as far back as the 1960s. The company settled the C8 class action for $671 million and the water contamination claims for $1.185 billion. Chemours was spun off from DuPont specifically as a vehicle for certain PFAS liabilities.
Tyco Fire Products / Ansul
Tyco manufactured AFFF products sold extensively to military and airport customers. The Tyco-related defendants are among the most active in the MDL.
Carrier Global (Kidde-Fenwal)
Carrier Global’s subsidiary Kidde-Fenwal manufactured AFFF and PFAS-containing fire suppression products. After being named in over 4,400 PFAS lawsuits, Kidde-Fenwal filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023. Carrier Global agreed to pay $730 million — the settlement reached in 2024 — to resolve claims against Kidde-Fenwal.
BASF, National Foam, Buckeye Fire Equipment
Multiple smaller manufacturers are also named in AFFF MDL litigation, covering the full supply chain of AFFF production and distribution.
The Statute of Limitations and Why the Rush to File
The legal deadline to file an AFFF personal injury claim depends on:
- Your state of residence at time of injury
- When you were diagnosed with the qualifying disease
- When you knew or should have known about the connection between your diagnosis and AFFF exposure
Most states apply a 2 to 4-year statute of limitations from the date of diagnosis or date of discovery — whichever is later. The discovery rule is particularly important in AFFF cases because many service members and firefighters were diagnosed with cancer years before news coverage connected their occupations to AFFF.
Why attorneys are urging immediate filing:
Judge Gergel’s CMO 37 (February 2026) — which establishes compliance requirements for filed cases — creates procedural advantages for cases already in the MDL. Law firms warn that once a global settlement framework is announced, enrollment cutoff dates are typically imposed within weeks to months. Cases filed after the cutoff may be excluded from the settlement or placed in a less favorable compensation tier.
The October 2025 trial delay does not mean the litigation is slowing down — it means the court is preparing it. Settlement discussions between the Plaintiffs’ Leadership and defense defendants accelerated in 2025 and continue in 2026.
State-by-state statute of limitations guide:
| State | Personal Injury SOL | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| California | 2 years from discovery | Discovery rule — strong cancer-exposure date arguments |
| Texas | 2 years | Strict; few exceptions |
| Florida | 4 years (product liability) | Longer window than most |
| New York | 3 years | Latent injury discovery rule available |
| Illinois | 2 years | |
| Virginia | 2 years | Many military base exposure cases |
| North Carolina | 3 years | Multiple major bases (Camp Lejeune proximity) |
| Washington | 3 years | Joint Base Lewis-McChord, McChord AFB claims |
| Georgia | 2 years | Robins AFB, Dobbins ARB exposure claims |
| Ohio | 2 years | DuPont/C8 exposure cases alongside AFFF |
How to File an AFFF Lawsuit — Step by Step
Step 1 — Confirm your exposure history
Document where and when you were exposed to AFFF. Useful documentation includes:
- Military service records (DD-214 showing stations and assignments)
- Fire department employment records
- Base assignment histories showing proximity to AFFF storage, training areas, or water supply contamination zones
- Any records of AFFF use at your facility during your service
- PFAS blood serum test results (if you’ve had one)
Step 2 — Confirm your medical diagnosis
Your qualifying disease must be documented in medical records from a licensed healthcare provider. The MDL’s profile forms require:
- Pathology report or biopsy confirmation for cancer diagnoses
- Gastroenterologist documentation for ulcerative colitis
- Specialist documentation for thyroid disease
- Records of treatment — surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, hospitalization
Step 3 — Contact an AFFF attorney for a free evaluation
Every law firm handling AFFF cases works on full contingency — zero upfront cost. The evaluation is free. The firm reviews your exposure history and diagnosis and advises whether your case meets current MDL eligibility requirements. Most evaluations can be completed in a single phone call or online form.
Step 4 — File your plaintiff profile form
Joining MDL 2873 requires submitting a standardized plaintiff profile form through the court’s MDL portal, documenting your exposure history, diagnosis, and treatment. Your attorney handles this filing. CMO 37 requires that cases include proper medical diagnosis documentation — cases that don’t comply face dismissal.
Frequently Asked Questions
I was a firefighter for 20 years. Does the length of my career affect my case value? Yes. Longer exposure duration corresponds to higher body burden of PFAS, which typically corresponds to stronger causation evidence and higher case value. A 20-year career firefighter with documented AFFF exposure who develops kidney cancer has both longer exposure duration and a more persuasive causation argument than someone with shorter exposure. Career firefighters — who spent decades using AFFF in training and incidents — are among the highest-priority plaintiffs in this litigation.
Can I file an AFFF lawsuit if my cancer is in remission? Yes. Being in remission does not bar your claim. Your documented diagnosis, treatment, and the lasting physical and emotional impact of cancer are all compensable — regardless of current remission status. Cases involving aggressive treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation) with documented side effects often have higher value even when the patient achieves remission.
What if I served at a military base but was never directly involved in firefighting? If you lived or worked at a military installation where PFAS contaminated the drinking water or soil, you may have a water contamination exposure claim even without direct firefighting involvement. The MDL includes both direct occupational exposure claims and environmental exposure claims. Contact an attorney to evaluate your specific base assignment history.
My husband was a career firefighter and died of kidney cancer last year. Can our family still file? Yes. Wrongful death claims are available for families of AFFF exposure victims who have passed away. The statute of limitations for wrongful death typically begins at the date of death — most states allow 2 years. Your attorney needs your husband’s exposure history, medical records, and death certificate to evaluate the claim.
The MDL seems to be moving slowly. Should I still file? Yes. The administrative reset in MDL 2873 is preparation for the first personal injury trial, not a retreat from it. The court is ensuring cases are properly documented so that when the trial calendar resumes, it can proceed efficiently. Attorneys in this litigation consistently advise that the risk of waiting — statute of limitations expiration, settlement enrollment cutoffs — is significantly greater than the benefit of waiting to see what happens with the first trial.
Bottom Line: The Pattern Is Clear
Three companies — 3M, DuPont, and Carrier Global — have collectively paid over $12 billion to settle PFAS contamination claims before a single individual cancer case has reached a jury verdict. Their settlements acknowledge contamination, acknowledge harm, and demonstrate both financial capacity and business motivation to resolve litigation before trial creates further reputational and financial damage.
The firefighters, military veterans, and airport workers who absorbed these chemicals directly — through skin contact, inhalation, and ingestion over years of occupational exposure — are the next class of plaintiffs. Their cancer diagnoses are documented. The science linking their exposure to those cancers is established. The companies responsible have already demonstrated their willingness to pay billions to make these cases go away.
If you are a firefighter, military veteran, or airport worker who has been diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, bladder cancer, or ulcerative colitis — contact an AFFF attorney for a free case evaluation today.
The evaluation is free. The representation is contingency — zero fees unless you recover compensation. And the window to file with maximum leverage is narrowing as the first trials approach.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Statute of limitations, eligibility criteria, and settlement projections vary by individual facts and jurisdiction. Consult a licensed attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
Last updated: May 2026 | Data sourced from MDL 2873 JPML statistics, Judge Gergel’s CMO 37 (February 2026), Miller & Zois AFFF litigation updates, Keefe Law Firm MDL tracker, TorHoerman Law settlement data, C8 Science Panel reports, and verified court filings