Key Takeaways
- The $7.35 billion settlement is expected to potentially cover between 115,000 and 120,000 plaintiffs alleging injury from PFAS-containing AFFF
- If past history is an indicator, expect other similar settlements from companies involved in similar claims, in particular, DuPont and BASF
- The settlement will impact downstream users of PFAS in several significant ways that are critical to understand for companies assessing PFAS-related risks
What Is the Scope of 3M’s Settlement?
On November 3, 2026, 3M said it would commit nearly $7.35 billion over nine years to settle at collection of its PFAS-related personal injury claims stemming from exposure to PFAS-containing AFFF. In recent years, 3M faced thousands of lawsuits over PFAS exposure and injury from AFFF, and said that approximately 115,000 to 120,000 plaintiffs are eligible to participate in the settlement.
The settlement addresses about 99% of current personal-injury claims inside and outside the AFFF MDL in the federal district court in South Carolina. 3M says that the remaining and future personal injury claims from AFFF, both inside and outside the AFFF MDL, will be managed through several settlement mechanisms, including payments being contingent on plaintiffs joining the resolution, a $680 million reserve fund included in the overall financial commitment, and an anticipated MDL court order establishing evidentiary and timing requirements for plaintiffs who may seek to litigate in the future.
To fund the settlement, 3M plans to make an initial $50 million payment in 2026, no payments in 2027, and continuing payments thereafter with about 20% of payments due in the final two years of the 9-year period.
What Other PFAS Settlements Has 3M Recently Agreed To?
This settlement is the next in line of settlements by 3M related to its PFAS liabilities. On August 7, 2026, 3M reached a settlement with New Jersey for damages to natural resources in the state that could reach up to $450 million. In 2023, 3M reached a $10.3 billion settlement with a collection of US public water systems to resolve water pollution claims tied to PFAS. Additionally, in 2018, 3M settled a long-standing lawsuit with Minnesota for $850 million to fund drinking water and natural resource projects in the Twin Cities East Metro area.
Will This Settlement Impact Other Companies?
Yes, without a doubt and in three specific ways:
- Downstream entity targeting in litigation: chemical litigation follows a typical pattern wherein once the initial target(s) resolve their claims, plaintiffs’ attorneys turn their attention to downstream entities that used those chemicals. The PFAS personal injury litigation will be no different. Non-chemical manufacturers that utilized PFAS in their finished products face elevated risks of being pulled into future tort claims.
- Supply Chain Disruption: 3M’s announcement regarding the settlement reiterated its cessation of sales of all PFAS. The settlement underscores the potential liabilities associated with PFAS-containing products, which larger commercial and industrial companies have already recognized and pushed for “PFAS-free” certifications from primary suppliers. Expect a more aggressive push trickling down to secondary and tertiary level supply chain sources to root out PFAS in current and legacy components.
- Heightened Financial Auditing: publicly traded manufacturing companies can expect increased scrutiny from auditors, particularly if the manufacturing facilities owned by the company utilized AFFF for fire suppression or testing purposes. SEC required disclosures for probable and estimable liabilities might be reassessed by auditors in light of the significant AFFF related settlement by 3M. While the AFFF use risks at these facilities is not a new issue, companies should expect the settlement to increase the attention that this issue receives.
CMBG³’s Perspective — What We Are Seeing
The 3M settlement is one of the largest settlements in the United States to resolve civil litigation matters. There are still several unknowns, including how many of the potentially eligible plaintiffs will opt out of the settlement and pursue independent litigation. Of critical importance to downstream users of PFAS, though, is understanding the impacts that the settlement will have on their business practices. These include increased litigation risks, additional supply chain disruption, and heightened financial auditing surrounding AFFF or PFAS use.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. How is the $7.35 billion going to be paid out by 3M?
A. 3M plans to make an initial $50 million payment in 2026, no payments in 2027, and continuing payments thereafter with about 20% of payments due in the final two years of the 9-year period.
Q. How many personal injury claims will this settlement resolve?
A. 3M estimates that between 115,000 and 120,000 AFFF personal injury claims will be eligible for resolution under the settlement. However, plaintiffs do have the option to opt out of the settlement, so it remains to be seen what the opt-in rate will be for the settlement.
Q. How will the 3M settlement impact downstream companies that used PFAS?
A. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS but used PFAS in their processes will face increased scrutiny as a result of the 3M settlement. These companies are now at increased risk for a second wave of personal injury litigation from PFAS used to manufacture their own products. Supply chain sourcing will also tighten considerably in light of the settlement, making it likely that second and third tier supply chain sources will receive more aggressive inquiries related to PFAS. Finally, auditors are expected to look much more closely at companies’ historic or current AFFF use at their facilities.
