Forever Chemicals, Lasting Consequences: US Legal Cases Against PFAS Manufacturers

Since the 1940s, perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been utilised in manufacturing a variety of products, including cleaners, cookware, water-repellent clothing, personal care items, and firefighting foam. These human-made compounds are prized for their ability to repel heat, water, and oil.

PFAS are also well known for their durability, resisting breakdown in environmental settings and biological systems. This particular trait has earned these product enhancers the label of “forever chemicals”, and with it the increased scientific scrutiny that such a reputation will attract.

Research has suggested that PFAS exposure may be linked to cancer, liver dysfunction, thyroid disorders, and developmental challenges in children. It is believed that sources of drinking water are a major contributor to PFAS contamination. State and federal health and environmental protection services began pursuing relief in court, with cases in New York and New Jersey among the most prominent early examples.

New York has pursued serious claims against PFAS manufacturers, particularly in cases involving contamination of drinking water. The state’s attorney general has filed lawsuits on behalf of municipalities and public water systems, seeking to recover the costs of treating and removing PFAS from public water. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has filed lawsuits against PFAS manufacturers, seeking damages for purported contamination at multiple sites across the state. These cases have resulted in substantial verdicts and settlements and set precedent for how PFAS-related claims will be handled.

In 2016, the public drinking water supply in the Town of Hoosick in upstate New York was alleged to contain PFAS. Residents of Hoosick Falls filed multiple lawsuits against PFAS manufacturers, alleging that the companies were aware of the contamination and failed to take adequate steps to mitigate it.

In 2021, an eight-figure settlement was reached with the residents and several of the manufacturer defendants.

In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York made a significant ruling, finding personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants that “manufactured and sold raw PFAS and PFAS-containing products and solutions to industrial manufacturers, downstream distributors, and individual customers” in New York.

In 2022, the state of New York filed a lawsuit against several manufacturers of PFAS. The New York Attorney General alleged that, with knowledge of the dangers, these companies were responsible for widespread contamination of water supplies across the state. The state sought damages for the contamination of natural resources, public health risks, and the costs associated with cleaning up and remediating alleged PFAS-contaminated sites.

The case was still in the early stages of litigation when, in August of 2023, NY State Attorney General Letitia James issued a press release indicating that an over USD10 billion-dollar settlement was being negotiated. This matter is considered one of the most significant PFAS cases in New York due to its potential impact on statewide environmental remediation efforts and the precedent it could set for future litigation.

This matter involved a chemical manufacturing facility in West Deptford, Gloucester County, which allegedly released PFAS into the surrounding environment. In response, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection issued a “Statewide Directive”, mandating that several companies responsible for the purported PFAS pollution initiate cleanup efforts. When they failed to comply with the directive, the NJDEP filed a lawsuit in 2020.

The NJDEP sought damages under New Jersey’s Spill Compensation and Control Act, Water Pollution Control Act, and other state environmental laws.

The parties reached a settlement, approved by the court on 6 March 2024, requiring defendants to commit USD393.8 million toward remediation efforts and compensation.

This case involves the NJDEP’s lawsuit against several manufacturers for alleged PFAS contamination at manufacturing facilities, including the Chambers Works plant in Carneys Point, New Jersey. The lawsuit was filed in 2019 and claimed that defendants disposed of enormous amounts of PFAS-containing waste in water bodies and landfills near the facility, as well as emitting PFAS into the atmosphere.

In 2021, several manufacturers reached a USD4 billion settlement with NJDEP and other states to resolve environmental liabilities, including those related to PFAS contamination. This settlement was one of the largest of its kind and included funding for ongoing cleanup efforts and compensation for damages.

The recent wave of court cases and substantial settlements related to alleged PFAS contamination represents a pivotal moment in environmental litigation. Major chemical manufacturers face unprecedented financial penalties for their alleged role in PFAS pollution, signalling a new era of corporate accountability. These legal outcomes have catalysed robust regulatory action, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposing limits on PFAS in drinking water and designating certain PFAS as hazardous substances under federal law.

In that context, individual PFAS-related claims are expected to escalate, with several broad classes of potential plaintiffs asserting that they have suffered personal injuries related to their exposure to products containing PFAS. Potential personal injury plaintiffs include consumers of commercial products such as shampoo, pet care and raincoats, and homeowners living in proximity to alleged contamination. Additionally, businesses that own or operate on contaminated land, including agricultural operations, may pursue claims against PFAS manufacturers to recover damages for lost income, remediation costs, and potential future liabilities related to contaminated products.

As the potential for a large volume of individual and class action lawsuits escalates, insurance carriers who write liability policies for product manufacturers are increasingly challenged. Accordingly, carriers have added PFAS exclusions to new policies in efforts to limit the risk. As this trend continues, companies engaged in the manufacture of these products may face challenges in securing comprehensive coverage, potentially necessitating alternative risk management strategies or specialised insurance solutions.

As the landscape evolves, raw PFAS manufacturers and those whose products contain them can expect intensified scrutiny and an upswing in litigation. The trend towards stricter regulations and heightened corporate responsibility is likely to accelerate, potentially reshaping industry practices and environmental standards. However, at this time, “forever chemicals” are still utilised in the manufacture of many commercial and household products.