Veterans, military and civilian firefighters, and people who lived or worked near a military base may qualify to file an individual AFFF injury claim in MDL 2873, where more than 15,000 lawsuits allege 3M, DuPont and other manufacturers' firefighting foam caused kidney, testicular, thyroid and liver cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis. No personal-injury settlement or claim form exists yet; a free case review is the only step available now.
Allegations Only · No Liability Finding Yet
This article describes claims in active litigation. The statements below are unproven allegations. 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, Tyco Fire Products, BASF and the other defendants deny liability, no personal-injury case has gone to verdict, and the MDL has not produced a personal-injury settlement. This page is informational and is not legal or medical advice.
Current Status: Cases Are Being Accepted, but There Is No Settlement Yet
Attorneys are accepting new AFFF personal-injury cases for filing in MDL 2873, the federal multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel. As of mid-2026 the MDL held more than 15,000 pending personal-injury actions. The first personal-injury bellwether trial, a kidney cancer case set for October 20, 2025, was taken off the calendar and had not been reset as of September 2026. There is no personal-injury settlement, no fund and no claim form. The multibillion-dollar settlements announced by 3M, DuPont, Tyco and BASF resolved claims by public water systems and do not pay individuals.The qualifying criteria attorneys are screening against are narrow and specific: exposure to AFFF or to PFAS-contaminated drinking water, most often through military service or by living or working on or near a base, followed by a diagnosis of kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, thyroid disease, liver cancer or ulcerative colitis. Someone who meets both halves can have the case reviewed at no cost now; someone who does not should not expect a later settlement to open a claim form for them.
Two OCA pages cover the AFFF litigation, and they lead to the same free case review. This page is the diagnosis side: the six qualifying conditions, the science behind them, the filing steps and the deadlines. The military base PFAS contamination page is the exposure side: which installations are affected, how the foam reached the water, and the state-by-state base table. Both describe the same personal-injury track of MDL 2873, not a settlement.
What Is the AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit About?
Aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, is a firefighting foam designed to smother fuel fires. It spreads across burning jet fuel, gasoline or oil and seals off the oxygen the fire needs. Because it works on the fires an aircraft crash or fuel spill produces, the U.S. military adopted it in the late 1960s and used it for decades on flight lines, in aircraft hangars, aboard ships and, most heavily, in the fire-training pits where crews practiced on open fuel fires week after week. Civilian airports, oil refineries, chemical plants and municipal fire departments used it too.AFFF was formulated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the class of chemicals now known as PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS. PFAS resist heat, water and oil, which is what makes the foam effective, and they resist breaking down in the environment and in the human body, which is why they are called forever chemicals. Foam sprayed onto training pits, runways and hangar floors soaked into soil, reached groundwater and, at hundreds of installations, migrated into on-base and neighboring drinking-water supplies.
The lawsuits allege that 3M, DuPont and its spinoffs Chemours and Corteva, Tyco Fire Products, National Foam, Kidde-Fenwal, Chemguard, BASF and other manufacturers knew for decades that PFAS accumulate in the blood and were associated with cancer and other disease, and that they continued to sell the foam without warning the firefighters who handled it or the communities whose water it reached. The defendants deny the allegations. Several also assert a government-contractor defense on the theory that they made AFFF to a military specification, an argument the court has considered at length and that remains part of the litigation.
Who Qualifies for the AFFF Cancer Lawsuit?
A claim needs both an exposure history and a qualifying diagnosis. On the exposure side, the people most commonly filing are:• Military firefighters and crash-rescue crews from any branch, including Air Force fire protection specialists, Navy aviation boatswain's mates and damage controlmen, Marine Corps ARFF crews and Army firefighters.
• Service members and civilian employees who lived or worked on an installation where AFFF was used and drank the water there.
• Family members who lived in base housing, and residents of towns whose drinking water was drawn from wells or aquifers near a base, an airfield or a training site.
• Civilian firefighters at municipal departments and airports, and workers at refineries, chemical plants and other industrial sites where AFFF was used or manufactured.
On the diagnosis side, the intake criteria track the injuries the MDL court chose for its personal-injury bellwether process, plus two cancers attorneys are also screening for:
A person filing on behalf of a spouse, parent or child who died of one of these conditions can generally bring a wrongful-death claim, subject to the same exposure requirements and to the deadline rules described below. Other conditions that have been associated with PFAS in the scientific literature, such as high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension and reduced vaccine response, are not part of the bellwether process and are not being accepted as stand-alone injury claims.
The base list matters. A military installation, a Guard base or a former base that has since closed all count, and the exposure does not have to have been on the job: living in base housing or in a neighboring town on contaminated well water is the exposure path in many of the filed cases. The military base PFAS contamination page carries a state-by-state table of installations where PFAS has been documented; if a base is not on it, that is a question for the case review, not a reason to assume disqualification.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Why Military Bases Are at the Center of the AFFF Litigation
The Department of Defense was the largest single user of AFFF, and its own accounting explains why so many claims trace back to a base. Through September 30, 2025, the Department had identified 723 active installations, base-closure locations, National Guard facilities and formerly used defense sites that require an assessment of PFAS use or potential release, and had completed the preliminary assessment and site inspection phase at 704 of them. Assessment is not the same as confirmed contamination, but the number reflects how routinely the foam was discharged during training, equipment testing and hangar fire-suppression system tests, not only at real fires.Congress ordered the military off the foam in the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which required the Department to stop using fluorinated AFFF by October 1, 2024, with two one-year waivers available. The Department used both. Its second waiver pushed the deadline to October 1, 2026, citing the need to convert roughly 1,000 facilities and more than 6,000 mobile assets to fluorine-free foam that meets the military specification issued in January 2023, and the fact that compliant replacements were not yet available for every system. Military firefighters, in other words, were still handling AFFF in some locations into 2026.
Drinking water is the other half of the exposure story. In April 2024 the Environmental Protection Agency set the first enforceable federal drinking-water limits for PFAS, including 4.0 parts per trillion each for PFOA and PFOS, with public water systems given until 2029 to comply. In May 2026 the agency proposed keeping the PFOA and PFOS limits while offering systems an extension to 2031, and proposed rescinding the separate limits for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX and the mixture hazard index. Water sampled near AFFF sites has repeatedly tested at levels many times the 4 ppt figure, which is why residence near a base, rather than direct contact with the foam, is enough exposure history for many of the filed claims.
What the Science Says About PFAS and These Diagnoses
The diagnosis list is not arbitrary. In November 2023 the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization's cancer agency, classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), citing sufficient evidence in animals, strong mechanistic evidence in exposed people and limited epidemiological evidence for kidney cancer and testicular cancer. It classified PFOS as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). The full assessment was published in 2024 as Volume 135 of the IARC Monographs.The thyroid-disease and ulcerative-colitis categories trace to the C8 Science Panel, a court-created body of epidemiologists that studied roughly 70,000 people whose drinking water near DuPont's Washington Works plant in West Virginia had been contaminated with PFOA. In 2012 the panel reported a probable link between PFOA exposure and six conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol and pregnancy-induced hypertension. The panel defined a probable link as a connection that was more likely than not among the exposed population, and it is that finding the bellwether injury categories most closely follow.
The defendants dispute the strength of that evidence, and some later published reviews argue the associations for kidney cancer and thyroid disease have weakened as the epidemiology has grown. That dispute is what the bellwether trials and the general-causation expert rulings in MDL 2873 are meant to resolve. Nothing on this page should be read as a finding that AFFF caused any individual's illness; that is precisely the question the litigation has not yet answered.
Where MDL 2873 Stands in September 2026
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL 2873 in December 2018 and assigned it to Judge Gergel in Charleston. The docket contains two very different kinds of case. The water-provider cases, brought by public water systems for the cost of testing and treating contaminated supplies, have largely been resolved by the settlements described in the next section. The personal-injury cases, brought by individuals, have not, and they are the ones still growing: more than 15,000 personal-injury actions were pending as of mid-2026, and new cases continue to be filed and transferred in.The court's personal-injury bellwether process is built around a pool of 28 cases: 8 kidney cancer, 8 testicular cancer, 8 thyroid disease and 4 ulcerative colitis. The first trial from that pool, a kidney cancer case, had been set for October 20, 2025. Judge Gergel vacated the date after a court-ordered filing window under Case Management Order No. 35 brought a surge of new filings that had to be processed, and no replacement personal-injury trial date had been set as of this update. The Group B cases, the thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis plaintiffs, moved through their own selection process in 2026, with the parties' Group B bellwether proposals and expert-discovery plans due July 20, 2026.
The court has also updated the plaintiff profile form each filed case must complete and has kept the parties working with a special master on a framework for valuing personal-injury claims. That is the process that would underpin any eventual global settlement, and it is the reason settlement is discussed constantly in coverage of this litigation. It has not produced one. Anyone told that an AFFF settlement fund is open, or that a claim form exists, is being told something that is not true as of September 2026.
The Water-System Settlements Are Not Personal-Injury Payouts
The headline AFFF settlements resolved claims by public water systems, not by people. 3M agreed in 2023 to pay public water systems between $10.3 billion and roughly $12.5 billion over 13 years; DuPont, Chemours and Corteva agreed to $1.185 billion; and Tyco Fire Products ($750 million) and BASF ($316.5 million) followed, with Judge Gergel granting final approval to the Tyco and BASF settlements on November 22, 2024. Those approval orders state that the releases do not cover any individual's personal-injury claims. The money goes to utilities for testing, filtration and remediation; none of it is distributed to residents, veterans or firefighters, and none of it forecloses an individual injury claim.State cases are separate again. New Jersey's $2.5 billion PFAS settlement with DuPont and 3M and the Chemours $450 million federal settlement resolve government natural-resource and cleanup claims, and New York's attorney general sued 3M and DuPont in July 2026 on the same theory. None of those pays individuals either.
How Much Is an AFFF Lawsuit Worth Per Person?
There is no fixed AFFF settlement amount, and any per-person figure circulating online is a projection rather than a payout. No personal-injury case in MDL 2873 has reached a verdict, and no global settlement has been reached, so there is no track record to price a claim against. If a claim succeeds, whether at trial, in an individual settlement or through an eventual global program, compensation is evaluated case by case and can reflect past and future medical costs, lost income, pain and suffering and, in wrongful-death claims, funeral expenses and loss of financial support. The diagnosis, the duration and intensity of exposure, the age at diagnosis and the quality of the medical and exposure records all affect how a claim is valued. An attorney reviewing a case can explain how those factors apply to a specific set of facts; nobody can quote a number in advance.How to Join the AFFF Lawsuit (MDL 2873)
1. Pre-qualify online. A short, free intake questionnaire asks where and how you were exposed and what you were diagnosed with.Pre-qualify for a free AFFF case evaluation.
2. Free consultation with an attorney. If you pre-qualify, you will be contacted by phone by an attorney who handles AFFF and PFAS exposure cases and is familiar with the MDL 2873 requirements. There is no charge for the consultation and no obligation to proceed.
3. Gather your records. Useful documents include military service records (a DD-214 and duty-station history), employment records showing a firefighting or base assignment, proof of residence on or near an installation, and the medical records that document the diagnosis and its date. Do not delay the case review because records are incomplete; attorneys routinely obtain them after intake.
4. Case filing. If the claim proceeds, your attorney files it directly into MDL 2873 or in a federal district court from which it is transferred to the MDL, and completes the court's plaintiff profile form. Individual plaintiffs keep their own attorneys even though the cases are consolidated for pretrial purposes.
Is There a Deadline to File?
Yes. Personal-injury and wrongful-death claims are governed by state statutes of limitations, which commonly run two to three years and are often measured from the date of diagnosis or from when the connection between the illness and PFAS exposure was, or should have been, discovered. Which state's rule applies, and when its clock started, depends on the facts, and the answer can differ for a veteran diagnosed years after leaving the service and a resident still living on contaminated water. The MDL's own scheduling orders do not extend those deadlines. If you have one of the qualifying diagnoses, have the case reviewed now rather than waiting for a settlement announcement; a claim that is out of time when the settlement comes will not be revived by it.Free Case Review: See If You Qualify
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I qualify for the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit?
A claim generally requires two things: exposure to AFFF or PFAS-contaminated water — as a military or civilian firefighter, a service member, or someone who lived or worked on or near a military, naval, Air Force or Army installation, airport or training site where the foam was used — and a later diagnosis of kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, thyroid disease (excluding Graves' disease), liver cancer or ulcerative colitis. A free case review confirms whether an individual's exposure history and diagnosis fit the criteria attorneys are using in MDL 2873.
Is there an AFFF settlement I can claim right now?
No. As of September 2026 there is no personal-injury settlement, no settlement fund and no claim form in the AFFF litigation. The multibillion-dollar settlements announced by 3M, DuPont, Tyco and BASF resolved claims by public water systems for the cost of testing and treating contaminated drinking water; they do not pay individuals and do not release individual injury claims. The only step available to an individual now is to have a case evaluated and, if it qualifies, filed in the MDL.
Which cancers and illnesses are part of the AFFF lawsuit?
The personal-injury bellwether process in MDL 2873 is built around kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis — the court's first bellwether pool holds 8 kidney cancer, 8 testicular cancer, 8 thyroid disease and 4 ulcerative colitis cases. Attorneys screening new claims also accept liver cancer and thyroid cancer diagnoses. Graves' disease is generally excluded from the thyroid-disease category.
How much is an AFFF lawsuit worth per person?
There is no fixed AFFF settlement amount. No personal-injury case in MDL 2873 has gone to verdict and no global settlement has been reached, so any dollar figure circulating online is a projection, not a payout. If a claim succeeds, compensation is evaluated individually and can reflect medical costs, lost income, pain and suffering and, in wrongful-death claims, funeral costs and loss of support. The diagnosis, the length and intensity of exposure, and the strength of the medical and exposure records all affect value.
What is MDL 2873?
MDL 2873, In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, is the federal multidistrict litigation that consolidates AFFF lawsuits for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel. It was created in December 2018 and, as of mid-2026, holds more than 15,000 pending personal-injury actions against 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, Tyco Fire Products, BASF and other foam and chemical manufacturers. The first personal-injury bellwether trial, set for October 2025, was taken off the calendar and had not been reset as of September 2026.
Is there a deadline to file an AFFF claim?
Yes. Personal-injury and wrongful-death claims are governed by state statutes of limitations, which commonly run two to three years and are often measured from the date of diagnosis or from when the connection between the illness and PFAS exposure was, or should have been, discovered. The rules vary by state and the clock may already be running, so a person with a qualifying diagnosis should have the case reviewed promptly rather than waiting for a settlement announcement.
Sources
• U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina — MDL 2873, In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation• Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation — Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending
• IARC Monographs Volume 135 — Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
• U.S. EPA — Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) National Primary Drinking Water Regulation and May 2026 proposed rules
• Department of Defense — Cleanup of PFAS: installations requiring assessment
• Department of Defense — Briefing on the second waiver of the prohibition on the use of fluorinated AFFF (deadline extended to October 1, 2026)
• C8 Science Panel — Probable Link Reports
• ATSDR — PFAS and Your Health: Health Effects
