PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

CA, DC, DE, FL, GA, MD, MI, MN, NC, NJ, NM, NV, NY, NC, OH, SC, TX, VT, WA, WI

The world of PFAS litigation is quickly evolving. As regulatory scrutiny of these compounds increases, so, too, will the body of associated case law. From class actions to multidistrict litigation, this section will regularly highlight developments in PFAS-related litigation.

Content in this section does not reflect the opinion of Alston & Bird or its attorneys.

Please note, a subscription may be required to view some of this content.

 

Read the PFAS Primer Quarterly Update

Subscribe
Previous Issues

D.C. Circuit Denies EPA’s Request to Vacate Drinking-Water Limits for Four PFAS

A D.C. Circuit motions panel denied the EPA’s motion to vacate four of six PFAS limits for drinking water. Industry groups and water utilities had challenged the EPA’s final rule setting maximum contaminant levels in drinking water for certain PFAS chemicals. The EPA sought to vacate four of the six PFAS limits (for HPFO-DA, PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS), arguing they were invalid due to procedural errors by the previous administration, but did not walk back the limits for PFOA or PFOS. In denying the EPA’s request to vacate, the court found the merits of the parties’ positions were “not so clear as to warrant summary action.” As a result of the denial, the six PFAS limits remain in place while the litigation proceeds on the merits, creating uncertainty for water utilities because any final decision is unlikely before the rule’s deadlines take effect.

January 21, 2026 | American Water Works Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir.).

Michigan Court Tosses State PFAS Cleanup Claims Against Airport, Citing Federal Aviation Law Preemption

A Michigan state court dismissed an enforcement action by the State of Michigan against the Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority seeking remediation of PFAS contamination allegedly caused by the airport’s use of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF). The court held that the federal aviation safety law preempts the state’s cleanup mandates. The ruling emphasizes that for decades, the Federal Aviation Administration required commercial airports to use AFFF meeting a military specification that mandated PFAS, meaning that the alleged contamination stems from federally mandated safety standards rather than discretionary airport conduct. The court concluded that the use of AFFF at the commercial airport is a matter of aviation safety and therefore subject to federal preemption, barring the plaintiffs from litigating the claim against the defendant. The decision appears to be a case of first impression—an action seeking to enforce cleanup requirements against a commercial airport over PFAS containing AFFF.

November 24, 2025 | Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy v. Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority, No. 23-08850-CE (Mich. Cir.

Florida Tribe Sues Multiple Manufacturers Alleging PFAS Contamination

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida filed suit in the District of South Carolina against multiple manufacturers alleging contamination of tribal lands and waters from PFAS-containing AFFF. The complaint alleges that decades of AFFF use introduced PFAS into groundwater and surface waters within the tribe’s Everglades homeland, allegedly contaminating rivers, lakes, streams, and indigenous fish tribal members have long relied on. The tribe alleges that PFAS have caused elevated risks of cancer, heart problems, and other health issues. The plaintiff seeks to recover remediation costs and other damages and asserts several causes of action, including negligence, trespass, strict liability, and fraudulent concealment.

October 29, 2025 | Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. 3M Company, No. 2:25-cv-13186 (D.S.C.).

Residents Sue over PFAS Contamination in College Drinking Water

Residents, students, and employees of the College of Central Florida filed a putative class action alleging that firefighting training activities on the campus contaminated local drinking water with PFAS from aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products from certain manufacturers. The complaint, now removed to federal court, alleges that the use of the defendants’ AFFF by a former occupant of the college led to PFOS and PFOA migrating into the campus’s wells. The plaintiffs cite a 2018 testing performed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection allegedly showing PFAS levels in two of three wells at approximately 250,000 to 270,000 parts per trillion (ppt), far above the EPA’s 70 ppt health advisory level. The plaintiffs allege that decades of exposure to these PFAS have caused health conditions, including thyroid disease, kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis, and other ailments, and they seek damages and medical monitoring. The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants knew or should have known of the chemicals’ toxicity and persistence.

October 15, 2025 | Zache v. 3M Company, No. 5:25-cv-00648 (M.D. Fla.).

Minnesota Tribe Sues Corporate Giants over PFAS Contamination

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe sued multiple manufacturers, alleging that PFAS containing products they manufactured or sold contaminated the tribe’s drinking water, lake, and other natural resources. The complaint, now removed to federal court, alleges that PFAS levels on tribal lands exceed state, federal, and tribal limits. The plaintiff claims that the PFAS contamination is traced to some of the defendant’s products including aqueous film forming foam (AFFF). The suit alleges that PFAS have entered the environment through landfills, composting facilities, airports, and wastewater plants, contributing to cancer, liver disease, developmental defects, and other illnesses. The complaint alleges claims of public nuisance, negligence, products liability, and unjust enrichment, as well as fraudulent transfer against a manufacturer and a cost recovery claim against another manufacturer under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act.

October 13, 2025 | Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe v. 3M Company, No. 0:25-cv-03930 (D. Minn.).