AFFF firefighting foam and PFAS exposure claims

AFFF claims allege that aqueous film-forming foam, used for decades in firefighting and fire training, exposed users and nearby communities to PFAS "forever chemicals" associated with several cancers — and that the manufacturers knew and failed to warn.

Reviewed by Omar A. Cooper, Esq. · Last updated September 3, 2026

What the litigation is about

PFAS are a large family of synthetic chemicals that do not readily break down in the environment or in the body. The EPA publishes an accessible overview of what they are and why persistence matters.

Two groups bring these claims: occupational users — municipal and military firefighters, airport and refinery crews — and residents of communities whose groundwater was contaminated by repeated foam use at training sites and airfields.

Who may qualify

Eligibility in this litigation generally turns on:

• occupational use of AFFF, or residence in a community with documented PFAS water contamination;
• a diagnosis of kidney cancer, testicular cancer, or another condition recognised in this litigation;
• the duration and period of exposure;
• where the exposure was environmental, water-testing evidence for the supply.

What we will ask you for

A review moves quickly when you have these to hand — and none of them are required to call:

• employment or service records establishing the role and years;
• training and incident records showing foam use;
• the pathology report and diagnosis date;
• public water-testing results for a residential claim;
• any PFAS blood-serum testing, where it exists.

No outcome can be promised in any mass tort, and eligibility is not the same as recovery. What an eligibility review gives you is a straight answer about whether a claim exists and whether it is worth pursuing.

Sources: U.S. EPA — PFAS explained · U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation — pending MDL statistics

Common questions