AFFF Firefighting Foam Cancer Lawsuit: MDL 2873 Status and Who Qualifies

Aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, has been used for decades to put out fuel fires at military bases, airports, refineries, and fire departments. Many AFFF formulas contain PFAS, the "forever chemicals" that do not break down in the environment or the body, especially PFOA and PFOS.

According to the federal court overseeing the litigation, plaintiffs allege that AFFF containing PFOA and PFOS contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports, and industrial sites where it was used, causing personal injury, a need for medical monitoring, property damage, and other losses. Firefighters also allege direct exposure from spraying foam, training exercises, and handling gear.

The science has moved in the plaintiffs' direction. In December 2023, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B), noting limited human evidence for kidney and testicular cancer. Manufacturers dispute that their products caused any individual's illness, and some argue they are protected because they made foam to military specifications.

These are individual claims grouped in a mass tort, along with claims by water utilities, states, and property owners.

What the science says about PFAS and cancer

Causation is the central fight in any toxic exposure case, so it helps to know what the leading cancer agency actually found. In November 2023, a working group of 30 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon to review PFOA and PFOS.

• PFOA was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in experimental animals and strong mechanistic evidence in exposed humans, including epigenetic changes and immune suppression.
• PFOS was classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on strong mechanistic evidence.
• For people specifically, the agency found limited evidence for renal cell carcinoma (the most common kidney cancer) and testicular cancer.

IARC's working group rated the human evidence for PFOA and kidney and testicular cancer as limited, not sufficient, which is why these cases still depend on expert testimony about each plaintiff's exposure. Defendants point to that word, and to other risk factors such as smoking, obesity, and high blood pressure for kidney cancer. Plaintiffs point to the Group 1 classification and to studies of highly exposed communities and workers.

An IARC classification is about whether a substance can cause cancer in general, not whether it caused a particular person's cancer. That second question is decided case by case, and it is why the court has held expert and science proceedings before any trial. Science on PFAS keeps developing, so the list of accepted conditions could change.

The case is In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2873, master docket 2:18-mn-2873, before Judge Richard M. Gergel in the District of South Carolina. The JPML created it on December 7, 2018. It is one of the largest active MDLs in the country; the JPML's September 2026 report showed 15,264 pending actions, and the court says the cases involve tens of thousands of plaintiffs.

Personal injury bellwethers

The court organized personal injury cases by disease, with an early focus on kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis, and later schedules for thyroid and liver cancer experts. The first personal injury bellwether trial, a kidney cancer case, was set for October 2025, but the date was vacated in August 2025 and no new trial date had been set as of June 2026. Part of the delay involved disputes over large numbers of unfiled claims and whether they were properly vetted.

Settlement status

As of September 2026, there is no global settlement of personal injury claims with any defendant, according to case trackers. Talks have been reported, and lawyers widely expect a settlement grid that ranks claims by diagnosis and exposure, but nothing has been announced.

A related new MDL

Firefighters who blame PFAS in protective turnout gear, rather than foam, have their own case. The JPML created MDL 3191, In re: Non-AFFF Firefighter Turnout Gear litigation, in the District of Minnesota on August 18, 2026.

The largest AFFF settlements so far resolve claims by public water systems that had to test for and remove PFAS. They are real and large, but they pay utilities, not people with cancer.

3M said its public water supplier settlement received final court approval on April 1, 2024, with payments of up to $10.3 billion in present value spread over 13 years. If your household gets water from a utility that took part, you may benefit indirectly through treatment upgrades, but there is no individual claim form. For individual water contamination claims, see our PFAS water contamination lawsuit page.

Exposure history is usually the part of a claim that takes the most work to document. Common exposure paths described in the litigation include:

• Training fires. Crews practiced on fuel pits and sprayed large amounts of foam, sometimes weekly, often without respiratory protection.
• Real fuel fires and crash responses at airports, military airfields, ships, refineries, and highways.
• Equipment testing and cleaning, including flushing foam systems and washing trucks, which could leave foam on skin and clothing.
• Drinking water on or near bases and airports where foam soaked into groundwater over years.

Useful records include training logs, station assignments, incident reports, and statements from people you served with. For military service, your personnel file shows duty stations and job codes, which can show you worked in firefighting or crash rescue. If you used foam at more than one job, list each one, because each can add to your total exposure. Do not guess at numbers; a careful, truthful estimate that witnesses can back up is more useful than an exaggerated one that defense lawyers can pick apart.

Attorneys generally look for three things.

Exposure

The strongest cases involve years of direct contact: military firefighters, airport rescue crews, municipal firefighters who used Class B foam, and industrial fire brigades. Training fires, where foam was sprayed repeatedly, often matter most. People who lived near bases or airports with contaminated wells can also have claims, though proving exposure is harder.

A diagnosis in the litigation

The conditions most often accepted are kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, thyroid disease such as hypothyroidism, liver cancer, and ulcerative colitis. Case trackers consistently describe kidney and testicular cancer as the strongest claims. Other cancers are sometimes reviewed as research develops, but are less likely to be accepted today.

Timing

Exposure has to come before diagnosis, and the claim must be filed within your state's deadline.

Veterans should know that a lawsuit against manufacturers is separate from VA benefits; filing one does not require giving up the other. See military earplug and burn pit claims for related service exposure cases.

No personal injury settlement exists, so there are no official amounts. Some law firms publish estimates, such as ranges of a few hundred thousand dollars for the strongest kidney and testicular cancer cases and far less for weaker ones, but these are predictions, not offers.

What is likely, based on how other mass tort settlements work, is a points or tier system that weighs:

• The diagnosis, with kidney and testicular cancer expected at the top.
• How long and how directly you were exposed.
• Age at diagnosis and treatment severity, such as surgery to remove a kidney.
• Medical history and other risk factors.
• Documented losses such as medical costs and lost wages.

Of 19,840 AFFF actions filed in the MDL through September 1, 2026, about 4,576 were no longer pending, a reminder that many cases are dismissed or resolved individually before any global deal. Payments would also be reduced by attorneys' fees, expenses, and any medical liens. See class action vs. mass tort.

AFFF claims rely on state product liability law: design defect, failure to warn about PFAS risks, and negligence. The defendants' main legal defense is the government contractor defense, which can shield companies that made products to precise military specifications and disclosed known risks to the government. Judge Gergel has kept many PFAS cases in federal court under the federal officer removal statute; in April 2026 he denied South Carolina's attempt to send its PFAS case against 3M back to state court, according to case trackers.

Deadlines vary by state, and most start from diagnosis or from when you knew or should have known the cause. In California, for example, a personal injury claim generally must be filed within two years under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. Because the PFAS-cancer link has become better known in recent years, defendants may argue the clock started earlier than you think, so act promptly. For how MDLs move, see what an MDL is and how long these cases take.

1. Get your diagnosis records, including pathology and treatment notes.
2. Document your exposure: employment history, duty stations, training records, and the kinds of foam you used. Veterans can request service records through the National Archives.
3. Write down specifics like how often you sprayed foam, cleaned equipment, or trained with it, and whether you wore protective gear.
4. Track water history if you lived near a base or airport, including utility notices about PFAS.
5. Talk to an attorney soon, because deadlines vary and a settlement could set cutoffs for new claims.

A free case review takes about two minutes. You can also browse other lawsuits you may be able to join, including PFAS in consumer products.