The forever risk

This article originally appeared in Continuity Insurance & Risk (CIR) Magazine, November 2024.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are found in thousands of products – from fire-fighting foam to cosmetics, and food packaging to saucepans. In addition to being a considerable environmental concern, PFAS exposure is linked with multiple health risks, including cancer.

As governments and regulators continue to grapple with PFAS regulations, mass litigation and sizeable settlements continue across the US. Meanwhile in Europe, claimants are taking advantage of group litigation developments, and the rise of third party litigation funding to pursue claims against manufacturers of PFAS and PFAS products.

With widespread historical use and a long half-life, PFAS chemicals and their impact on human health and the environment have evolved from a health and environmental concern into a major driver of global litigation and regulatory activity and a significant insurance risk.

Regulatory landscape

PFAS regulation is arguably most advanced within the EU, with the Drinking Water Directive enforcing low maximum concentration limits and other measures, such as mandatory monitoring of food and baby formula, having already been implemented. In August 2025, the European Chemicals Agency published an update to its 2023 proposal to further restrict PFAS. The proposed restrictions could apply to more than 10,000 PFAS across the EU with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) considering a number of regulatory options across different PFAS applications and sectors – from a full PFAS ban to allowing continued use under strict conditions designed to control emissions.

UK REACH requires PFAS manufacturers to understand the hazards associated with PFAS chemicals, and to take steps to minimise risks to human health and the environment. A consultation on a potential restriction on PFAS in fire-fighting foams is currently underway with regulatory tightening likely after the consultation ends in February 2026.

In the US, President Trump had previously vowed to combat the spread of PFAS in the face of mounting litigation and growing concerns over PFAS links to cancer but the Environmental Protection Agency has now pulled back on implementing stricter drinking water limits for PFOA and PFOS until 2031, citing economic concerns. The reversal has alarmed scientists and activists who fear it may lead to regulatory inertia. Nevertheless, many manufacturers, such as 3M, have announced that they will stop manufacturing PFAS, despite the lack of clear regulations or restrictions, citing increased regulatory trends and consumer concerns over PFAS health and environmental impacts. 

Litigation trends

Amid the evolving regulatory landscape, PFAS litigation across the globe continues. Manufacturers 3M and DuPont, for instance, have both agreed settlements worth billions to resolve PFAS claims. In June 2023, 3M agreed a settlement of up to US$12.5 billion to resolve claims from a group of US public water systems for PFAS contamination stemming from AFFF firefighting foam. The settlements were reached in the course of the AFFF Multi District Litigation, the most significant aggregation of PFAS claims globally. The AFFF MDL is now considering personal injury claims from plaintiffs including veterans and military families exposed to AFFF. Rumours of a potential settlement of these personal injury claims has seen a surge in filings with 37,446 new claims filed in just one week in September 2025.

Despite a seemingly endless pool of potential plaintiffs (studies suggest that 97 per cent of Americans have PFAS in their blood) there has been some judicial caution in how broadly the class action net is cast. In Ohio, a court rejected a certification of a class of nearly 12 million residents, making it clear that plaintiffs must identify a plausible pathway between a defendant’s products and their illness – a bar that may be more easily met in the context of occupational exposure. 
Questions of causation will be a significant hurdle for plaintiffs globally seeking damages arising out of PFAS exposure and the issue is far from settled, despite the extensive PFAS settlements in the US.

US plaintiffs seeking to expand the pool of defendants from PFAS manufacturers to secondary users of PFAS in cosmetics and food packaging are working around the causation issue by basing claims on allegations of fraud or false advertising where companies market products as “all natural” or “non-toxic” despite PFAS content. Such claims avoid the science-intensive burden of proving bodily harm or environmental damage and rely instead on deceptive trade practices laws – a potentially lower bar for plaintiffs to meet.

Outside of the US, EU directives designed to facilitate representative actions have given consumer groups and government entities the standing to bring class actions on behalf of groups of consumers and across multiple member states. Coupled with the growing use of third-party litigation funding in jurisdictions including the Netherlands, Belgium and France (where major PFAS manufacturers operate), this is expected to lead to an increase in large scale PFAS litigation across Europe.

A long-tail, multi-line threat

The PFAS problem presents challenges across multiple insurance lines with claims stretching across time and geography. PFAS contamination may persist for decades after manufacture ceases, raising questions around policy trigger and allocation. One certainty is that the global societal cost of PFAS will be immense, with a report from non-profit Chemsec estimating the annual cost at around US$17.5 trillion, including healthcare and costs of removing PFAS from contaminated soil and water.

The evolving PFAS landscape requires a proactive approach to risk management and underwriting as jurisdictions develop new regulatory standards and the litigation landscape evolves. For claimants, tightening regulation, developing science, class action directives and litigation funding will be powerful drivers of litigation. For defendants, evolving standards mean that compliance today may not insulate them from future claims. Developing testing for PFAS and scientific study may also uncover as yet unknown sources of contamination or damage which will increase liabilities.

PFAS has evolved into a systemic, cross-sectoral risk with implications for litigation, regulation and insurance that will endure for decades. As the “forever chemical” continues to test the boundaries of liability, only those with a forward-looking risk perspective will stay ahead of the liability curve.