By Salahudeen Robinson, S26 Environmental Clinic Student
In environmental law practice, litigation can often start with a test result and finish with two questions: what does this mean for environmental or human health, and who (if anyone) can be held responsible?
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are thousands of synthetic chemicals used because they resist heat, water, oil, and stains. Many persist for years, which is why they’re often called “forever chemicals.” PFAS have been used in nonstick and stain-resistant products, grease-resistant food packaging, and firefighting foams (AFFF). Exposure is often cumulative. For most people, the main pathways are drinking water, eating food, and inhaling indoor dust. For communities near industrial sites, airports, military bases, and landfills, drinking water is frequently the central concern because chemicals from various sites disposal methods may reach communities groundwater.
PFAS science is not universal; “PFAS” is a category, not a single substance, and studies often show associations at the population level. Still, higher exposure to certain PFAS (including PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS) has been associated with higher cholesterol levels, immune effects (including lower vaccine antibody response in some children), thyroid disease, and pregnancy/developmental impacts, such as lower birth weight. Some research also links PFOA exposure to increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer.
The film Dark Waters was inspired by litigation over PFOA (also known as C8) linked to DuPont’s Washington Works facility near Parkersburg, VA. A class action settlement approved in 2005 funded water treatment and created the C8 Science Panel to study health outcomes in the exposed community. Later, DuPont and Chemours agreed to a cash settlement of about $671 million to resolve roughly 3,500 personal injury claims.
In Minnesota, the state sued 3M for PFAS disposal that allegedly damaged drinking water and natural resources across the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area; the case settled in 2018 for $850 million, funding water and environmental projects to rectify the damage caused.
A Texas Tribune report from April 2024 shows that nearly 50 Texas public water systems have already exceeded new EPA PFAS drinking water limits for chemicals like PFOA and PFOS. The first federal standards set legal caps at parts per trillion, and utilities are now beginning to monitor, report, and plan costly treatment upgrades. Some Texas officials are considering legal action against chemical makers to help cover the expenses of compliance.
Nationally, many AFFF-related cases have been centralized in a federal products-liability multidistrict litigation (MDL). Public water suppliers have pursued the costs of PFAS testing and treatment, and 3M’s settlement with public water suppliers, approved in 2024, is valued at up to $10.3 billion to support remediation over time. Even without a trial verdict, the message is unmistakable: once PFAS contamination forces a public system to install treatment, someone ends up paying.
As a current law student, it seems every time the liability story is built from the same pieces we see in other contamination cases: documented releases, a pathway into drinking water, evidence about what companies knew (and when), and damages measured in filtration systems, medical monitoring, and injury compensation.
Depending on the facts and state law, PFAS-related claims can include: Deceptive marketing and consumer protection (for “PFAS-free,” “non-toxic,” or environmental claims that are allegedly misleading), Breach of warranty (when specific promises about ingredients or safety are not true), Product liability/failure to warn (when foreseeable exposure is not adequately disclosed), Contamination-based claims (negligence, nuisance, trespass) and, in some situations, medical monitoring where PFAS migrate into water or property and drive filtration and cleanup costs.
If PFAS are on your radar, start with documentation: water reports, lab results, receipts, and screenshots of product claims. If you use a home filter, look for independent certification that specifically lists PFAS reduction. If you believe you were harmed or misled, talk with a qualified attorney or an environmental clinic/legal aid program about options in your jurisdiction.
This post is general information, not legal advice.
References:
EPA PFAS overview – https://www.epa.gov/pfas
CDC/ATSDR PFAS overview – https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/
C8 Science Panel background – https://www.c8sciencepanel.org/panel_background.html
Reuters on DuPont/Chemours C8 settlement – https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dupont-settles-lawsuits-over-teflon-140604300.html
Minnesota 3M PFAS Settlement – https://3msettlement.state.mn.us/
Texas Tribune Article – https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/16/texas-pfas-forever-chemicals-public-water-systems-epa-limit/
3M public water supplier settlement (final approval) – https://investors.3m.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1836/3m-settlement-with-public-water-suppliers-to-address-pfas
The articles published on this site reflect the views of the individual authors only. They do not represent the views of the Environmental Clinic, The University of Texas School of Law, or The University of Texas at Austin.