AFFF Firefighting Foam

What the lawsuit is about

Lawsuits allege that AFFF firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals exposed firefighters, military personnel, workers, and communities to substances linked in claims to serious disease.

Claims may involve Aqueous film-forming firefighting foam and PFAS chemicals. Plaintiffs claim they experienced injuries after use or exposure, while defendants generally dispute allegations, causation, liability, or damages. No page on this site can determine whether a person qualifies for a claim.

AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Update: May 2026

AFFF Firefighting Foam litigation remains active in federal MDL No. 2873 in the District of South Carolina. The litigation includes several categories of claims, including personal injury claims, public water system contamination claims, and other PFAS-related claims connected to aqueous film-forming foam.

As of May 2026, the personal injury side remains focused on exposure proof, disease categories, expert causation issues, and whether a person's exposure can be tied to AFFF rather than another PFAS source. Some public water system claims have followed settlement tracks, but individual cancer and disease claims require separate analysis and should not be treated as automatically resolved.

Recent public litigation activity has continued to emphasize case management, expert issues, and the separation between water-provider claims and individual injury claims. For people researching the case, the practical question is whether they can document where, when, and how they encountered PFAS-containing firefighting foam or PFAS-contaminated water, and whether their diagnosis fits the conditions being reviewed.

Case Status Snapshot

• Status: Active / Investigating
• Primary injury: PFAS exposure-related cancer and disease claims
• Main product/exposure: AFFF firefighting foam containing PFAS, including exposure through firefighting, military, airport, industrial, or water-contamination settings
• MDL or court context: MDL No. 2873, District of South Carolina
• Settlement status: Public water system settlements do not automatically resolve personal injury claims; individual injury settlement posture remains claim-specific
• Key deadline: Varies by state, exposure site, diagnosis date, discovery facts, and claim type
• State law relevance: State law may affect deadlines, damages, wrongful death claims, environmental exposure issues, and proof rules

Litigation Updates and Timeline

• 2018: Federal AFFF cases were centralized in MDL No. 2873 in the District of South Carolina for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
• 2023-2024: Public water system settlement activity became a major part of the broader AFFF/PFAS litigation, while personal injury claims continued on separate tracks.
• 2025: Court management continued to address claim categories, expert issues, discovery, and the organization of personal injury claims.
• Early 2026: Public status updates continued to focus on expert and case-management issues for disease categories and exposure pathways.
• May 2026: The practical focus for potential personal injury claims remains exposure reconstruction, disease diagnosis, medical proof, and state-law deadlines.

Current litigation status

AFFF Firefighting Foam claims are active and have been coordinated for years in federal multidistrict litigation involving PFAS-containing firefighting foam. The AFFF MDL, MDL No. 2873, is in the District of South Carolina and includes personal injury, water contamination, and other PFAS-related claims connected to aqueous film-forming foam.

The personal injury side of the litigation focuses on allegations that exposure to PFAS chemicals in AFFF contributed to cancers and other diseases, including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis. Defendants generally dispute exposure, causation, warnings, liability, and damages. Litigation status can change, and this guide is a general overview rather than a live court docket.

Key issues in the lawsuit

AFFF lawsuits generally allege that firefighting foam contained PFAS chemicals, including compounds such as PFOA and PFOS, and that repeated use or environmental release of the foam exposed firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, industrial workers, and nearby communities to harmful substances. Claims may involve direct occupational exposure, training exercises, emergency fire response, contaminated gear, contaminated soil, or drinking water contamination near sites where AFFF was used.

The key issues include whether a person had meaningful PFAS exposure, whether the exposure can be connected to AFFF rather than another source, whether the diagnosed condition is one being reviewed in the litigation, and whether warnings or safety information were adequate. In some cases, a claim may involve both occupational exposure and environmental contamination. In others, the exposure pathway may be less direct and require more investigation.

Because PFAS exposure can come from many sources, these cases often require careful exposure reconstruction. Plaintiffs may need to show where they worked, trained, lived, or drank water, what type of foam was used, how often exposure occurred, and how the disease timeline fits the alleged exposure.

How claims may be evaluated

AFFF claim review usually begins with exposure history. Fire department records, airport employment records, military service records, training logs, incident reports, foam purchase records, facility records, job descriptions, witness statements, and water testing records may help identify potential exposure. For military or airport-related exposure, location and dates can be especially important.

Medical records are also central. Diagnosis records, pathology reports, oncology records, specialist notes, lab results, surgery records, and treatment records can help confirm the disease, diagnosis date, stage, treatment course, and damages. A lawyer may also ask about smoking history, family history, occupational exposures, kidney function history, thyroid history, autoimmune conditions, and other medical factors.

Causation review may compare the type and duration of PFAS exposure with the diagnosed condition and known alternative causes. Some claims may be stronger when there is repeated occupational contact with AFFF or documented contamination at a specific site. Others may require additional investigation to connect exposure to a legally relevant source.

Common fact patterns

One common fact pattern may involve a firefighter who trained with or used AFFF during flammable liquid fire drills, aircraft rescue operations, refinery incidents, fuel fires, or equipment testing and later developed kidney cancer or testicular cancer. Another may involve a military service member stationed at a base where AFFF was used regularly and later diagnosed with a PFAS-related condition.

Airport workers, industrial safety workers, and people involved in fire suppression training may also have relevant histories. Some claims may involve residents near a base, airport, training center, or industrial site where PFAS contamination affected drinking water. Those claims may require water district records, public notices, environmental testing, or address history to evaluate.

Useful details can include the facility name, years of work or residence, whether foam was handled directly, whether protective equipment was used, whether water contamination was documented, and when the medical condition was first diagnosed.

What can make a claim harder to evaluate

AFFF claims can be harder to evaluate when the exposure source is unclear. PFAS chemicals are found in many products and environments, so a claim may need more than a general belief that PFAS exposure occurred. Missing employment records, uncertain training history, unknown foam type, or no documented contamination can make exposure harder to prove.

Medical and timing issues can also complicate review. A diagnosis that is not currently being reviewed in the litigation, a very limited exposure history, a long gap with unclear records, or strong alternative risk factors may require closer analysis. These facts do not automatically rule out a claim, but they can affect how a lawyer evaluates it.

Prior settlements, releases, workers’ compensation issues, military records, government contractor defenses, bankruptcy issues, or filing deadlines may also affect legal options. These questions are fact-specific and may vary by state.

Why state law may still matter

Even when AFFF claims are coordinated in a federal MDL, state law may still matter for individual cases. A person’s residence, exposure site, work location, diagnosis location, and defendant contacts can affect which state’s law applies. State law may influence deadlines, discovery rules, damages, wrongful death claims, and proof requirements.

Environmental exposure cases can also raise state-specific issues involving water districts, public notices, property records, occupational claims, or local contamination history. A national MDL can coordinate common issues, but individual claims still depend on the person’s facts and applicable law.

Questions to ask before contacting a lawyer

• Where and when was I exposed to AFFF or PFAS-contaminated water?
• Was the exposure tied to firefighting, military service, airport work, industrial work, or a contaminated site?
• Do I have employment, service, training, incident, or water testing records?
• What condition was diagnosed, and when was it first confirmed?
• Are there other possible PFAS or chemical exposure sources in my history?
• Which state’s deadline rules may apply to my exposure and diagnosis timeline?

Sources and status notes

• Federal court context: AFFF firefighting foam / PFAS claims have been coordinated in federal multidistrict litigation involving PFAS-containing firefighting foam. The District of South Carolina maintains public information for MDL No. 2873.
• Agency or medical context: PFAS health and environmental context may involve EPA, CDC, ATSDR, state environmental agencies, and water-testing information. Public background is available from the EPA PFAS information page and ATSDR PFAS and Your Health.
• Litigation status: This guide summarizes public litigation status information and should not be treated as a live court docket. AFFF claims may involve firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, industrial workers, or residents near contaminated sites.
• Review note: Case status, settlement posture, deadlines, and eligibility factors can change.
• Last reviewed: May 23, 2026.

Who may be affected

• People with documented use of or exposure to Aqueous film-forming firefighting foam and PFAS chemicals.
• People later diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, or another condition being reviewed in PFAS-related AFFF claims.
• People who can identify approximate dates, locations, providers, employers, or exposure circumstances.
• Families evaluating possible wrongful death issues should ask a lawyer how state law may apply.

Injuries involved

• Kidney cancer
• Testicular cancer
• Thyroid disease
• Ulcerative colitis
• PFAS exposure-related claims

Evidence usually needed

• Employment records
• Firefighting or military service records
• Training site history
• Water testing records
• Medical diagnosis records
• Pathology reports

Timeline

Settlement status

AFFF litigation is mature in some respects, especially for public water system contamination settlements, but personal injury claims remain separate and fact-specific. A water-provider settlement does not automatically resolve an individual cancer or disease claim. Personal injury settlement posture may depend on expert rulings, exposure category, disease category, proof of AFFF exposure, medical diagnosis, and state-law issues. No personal injury settlement, claim value, or outcome is guaranteed.

Deadline overview

Deadlines vary by state and may depend on diagnosis date, discovery date, exposure history, wrongful death issues, and other facts. A lawyer can evaluate how the relevant deadline rules may apply.

State-by-state guide links