|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
3M has agreed to pay $7.35 billion over 9 years to settle PFAS personal injury claims linked to firefighting foam. The company says the deal covers about 99% of current personal injury claims, both inside and outside the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) in South Carolina.
The St. Paul, Minnesota-based company announced the agreement on Nov. 3. The commitment has a present value of $5.8 billion, and 3M will record a pre-tax charge for that amount in the fourth quarter of 2026. Approximately 115,000 to 120,000 plaintiffs are eligible to take part.
The claims center on aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, which is used to put out fuel fires. Plaintiffs allege that exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, often called “forever chemicals,” in that foam and other products damaged their health.
3M does not admit liability. It said that if certain agreed terms are not met, it is prepared to keep defending itself in court.
For in-house legal teams, the structure of the deal says as much as the headline number about how a large defendant approaches mass litigation.
The 3M PFAS settlement depends on participation and future claims
A settlement of this size only buys certainty if enough claimants sign up, and 3M’s agreement is built around that risk.
Among the risks listed in its filing, 3M names whether plaintiff participation will fall below the level that would allow it to terminate the settlement, and whether it would choose to do so. The company has kept a way out if take-up falls short.
The deal also looks beyond the claims already on file. 3M says remaining and future personal injury claims will be handled through several mechanisms: payments that depend on plaintiffs joining the resolution, a $680 million reserve fund within the overall commitment, and an anticipated MDL court order setting evidentiary and timing requirements for plaintiffs who choose to litigate later.
That last element matters most for the long tail of the litigation. Clear rules on what late claimants must prove, and when, would help 3M manage cases not yet filed. The order is anticipated rather than in place, so how demanding it will be is still unknown.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers welcomed the outcome. Fred Thompson, an attorney at Motley Rice who represented plaintiffs in the case, called it “welcome news” for people who had sought answers and accountability for nearly a decade.
Payment timing shows how 3M is sequencing its PFAS liabilities
The payment schedule is weighted toward later years. 3M will pay $50 million in 2026 and nothing in 2027, with about 20% of payments falling due in the final 2 years of the term.
The company said the timing is designed to line up with its remaining payment obligations for other legacy settlements. It also said the charge does not change its previously issued 2026 guidance.
This is the latest in a run of PFAS resolutions. 3M agreed to an $850 million settlement with Minnesota in 2018 and a $10.3 billion deal with US public water systems in 2023. In 2025, it agreed to pay up to $450 million to New Jersey over alleged natural resource contamination.
“This settlement is a significant milestone for 3M and substantially reduces litigation uncertainty,” said William Brown, 3M’s chairman and CEO.
Each agreement has dealt with a different group of claimants: a state, water utilities, another state, and now individuals alleging personal injury. Spreading the payments across those deals gives 3M predictable cash outflows instead of a single shock to the balance sheet.
The company has also moved to limit the source of future claims. It announced in 2000 that it would phase out the PFAS compounds at the heart of these cases, and in 2022 it said it would stop making all PFAS globally by the end of 2025. 3M says it met that goal.
PFAS litigation risk reaches beyond chemical makers
For general counsel outside the chemicals sector, the deal is worth studying. AFFF has been used at sites such as military bases and airports, and PFAS have also been widely used in nonstick and water-resistant products. That breadth raises a practical question for companies that buy, use, or sell such products: where do these chemicals sit in their supply chains and product portfolios?
3M’s settlement also offers a template of sorts for any company facing large volumes of similar claims. Walk-away rights tied to participation, a reserve for later claims, and court-backed rules for future litigants are all tools a legal team can weigh.
The open questions now sit with the claimants and the court. Will enough plaintiffs join to keep the deal intact? If not, will 3M use its right to walk away? And how strict will the MDL court’s requirements for future claimants turn out to be?
For now, 3M has put a price on most of its known PFAS injury exposure. Whether that price holds depends on who signs up, and on what happens to those who don’t.
Source:
3M
