Breaking Down the AFFF Multidistrict Litigation

South Carolina has become a hotspot for litigation surrounding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The reason? The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina is home to the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Product Liability Multidistrict Litigation.

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is a tool used by courts to encourage efficiency.¹ In an MDL, similar federal cases are all transferred to one court for their pretrial proceedings, then returned to their original court for the actual trial.² This consolidation reduces the burden on courts to repeatedly answer the same factual questions.³ Consolidation also helps prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings.⁴

In 2018, following a number of lawsuits involving PFAS pollution from the use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the AFFF MDL.⁵ The MDL initially consisted of seventy-five AFFF cases, which the Judicial Panel transferred to Judge Richard M. Gergel in the District of South Carolina.⁶ Though not the site of any of the seventy-five cases, the District of South Carolina was selected because it had the judicial resources necessary to manage such complex litigation.⁷ The MDL has since expanded to include over 10,000 cases.⁸ These cases fall into four main categories: (1) state natural resource claims, (2) individual property damage claims, (3) public water system property damage claims, and (4) personal injury claims.⁹

The first major settlement in the AFFF MDL involved an individual property damage claim.¹⁰ In 2018, Joan and Richard Campbell brought a class action on behalf of all residents of Marinette County, Wisconsin whose private wells were contaminated with PFAS.¹¹ Three years later, Judge Gergel approved a $17.5 million settlement for the affected homeowners.¹² The majority of the settlement funds the remediation of contaminated private wells, while the remaining amount is split among homeowners experiencing health issues as a result of PFAS contamination.¹³

The Campbell Settlement, however, is a unique occurrence in the AFFF MDL.¹⁴ Public water system and personal injury claims have generally made the most progress in the MDL because Judge Gergel has selected them for the bellwether trial process. The bellwether trial process has two steps: first, cases are selected for the “Discovery Pool,” where they undergo more detailed evidence gathering, then the Discovery Pool is narrowed to form the “Trial Pool.”¹⁵ The cases in the Trial Pool are then the first cases from the MDL to return to their original court for a trial.

The bellwether process for public water systems began in 2020,¹⁶ and in September 2022, City of Stuart v. 3M Co. was selected for the first bellwether trial.¹⁷ The trial date was set for June 5, 2023, but the trial was placed on hold so the parties could focus on negotiating settlements in four different PFAS class actions cases.¹⁸ By late 2024, each of the four class actions had reached settlements totaling over $14 billion.¹⁹ The settlement funds are available to every public water system with water that was contaminated by PFAS before the respective settlement dates.²⁰

While public water systems were busy negotiating these settlements, the bellwether process for personal injury claims began. In December 2023, twenty-five plaintiffs were selected to be a part of the personal injury Discovery Pool.²¹ These plaintiffs were exposed to AFFF at military and municipal airports in Colorado and Pennsylvania and suffer from kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis.²² The twenty-five plaintiffs were then narrowed to eleven to form the Trial Pool.²³ The first trial is scheduled to begin October 20, 2025, however, Judge Gergel has yet to decide whether this trial will consist of a single kidney cancer case or a consolidation of three kidney cancer cases.²⁴ With this trial date looming, Judge Gergel recommends the parties in personal injury cases work to reach settlements in order to minimize the costs of litigation.²⁵

The Law Center continues to track this MDL and other state and federal actions to address PFAS. For more information on the AFFF MDL, see The Aqueous Film-Forming Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation: The Basics.

¹ 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a).
² Id.
³ E.g., In re Foundry Resins Antitrust Litig., 342 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347 (J.P.M.L. 2004).
⁴ Id.
⁵ In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Prods. Liab. Litig., 356 F. Supp. 3d 1391, 1396 (J.P.M.L. 2018).
⁶ Id.
⁷ Id.
⁸ Introduction, Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Prods. Liab. Litig. MDL No. 2873, (last visited July 7, 2025).
⁹ Types of Damage Claims Filed in the AFFF Firefighting Foam MDL, Stag Liuzza, (last visited July 7, 2025).
¹⁰ Michael Phillis, Firefighting Foam Maker Pays $17.5M In First MDL Settlement, Law360 (Jan. 7, 2021).
¹¹ Notice of Removal Ex. A at 7, Campbell v. Tyco Fire Prods. L.P. (In re Aqueous Film-Forming Prods. Liab. Litig.), No. 2:19-cv-00422-RMG (D.S.C. Jan. 31, 2019).
¹² Final Ord. and Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice, Campbell v. Tyco Fire Prods. L.P. (In re Aqueous Film-Forming Prods. Liab. Litig.), No. 2:19-cv-00422-RMG (D.S.C. Aug. 4, 2021).
¹³ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Certification of Settlement Class Ex. 1 at 18, Campbell v. Tyco Fire Prods. L.P. (In re Aqueous Film-Forming Prods. Liab. Litig.), No. 2:29-cv-00422-RMG (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 2021).
¹⁴ Cheyanne Sharp, The Aqueous Film-Forming Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation: The Basics 11–12 (2024).
¹⁵ Case Mgmt. Ord. No. 13 at 1–2, 7–8, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG (D.S.C. Dec. 28, 2020) (No. 1049).
¹⁶ Id. at 2.
¹⁷ Order Designating First Bellwether Water Provider Trial and Regarding Submissions to the Ct., In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Product Liability Litigation, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 23, 2022) (No. 2613).
¹⁸ Id.; Ord., City of Stuart v. 3M Co. (In re Aqueous Film-Forming Prods. Liab. Litig.), No. 2:18-cv-3487-RMG (D.S.C. June 5, 2023).
¹⁹ Public Water System Settlements, Firefighting Foam Maker Pays $17.5M In First MDL Settlement, Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Prods. Liab. Litig. (MDL 2873), (last visited June 9, 2025).
²⁰ Settlement Agreement Between Pub. Water Sys. and 3M Co., City of Camden v. 3M Company (In re Aqueous Film-Forming Prods. Liab. Litig.), No. 2:23-cv-3147-RMG (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 2023); Class Action Settlement Agreement, City of Camden v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co. (In re Aqueous Film-Forming Prods. Liab. Litig.), No. 2:23-cv-3230-RMG (D.S.C. June 30, 2023); Settlement Agreement for Water Sys., City of Camden v. Tyco Fire Prods. LP (In re Aqueous Film-Forming Prods. Liab. Litig.), No. 2:24-cv-02321-RMG (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2024); Settlement Agreement for Water Sys., City of Camden v. BASF Corp. (In re Aqueous Film-Forming Prods. Liab. Litig.), No. 2:24-cv-3147-RMG (D.S.C. May 20, 2024).
²¹ Joint Submission Regarding Proposed Initial Pers. Inj. Bellwether Discovery Pool Plaintiffs at 2, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Product Liability Litigation, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2023) (No. 4211).
²² Id. at 2–3.
²³ Ord. Selecting Tier Two Pers. Inj. Bellwether Cases, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Product Liability Litigation, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG (D.S.C. Jul. 19, 2024) (No. 5361).
²⁴ Case Mgmt. Ord. No. 26I, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Product Liability Litigation, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG (D.S.C June 4, 2025) (no. 7248).
²⁵ Pat Rizzuto, Judge Urges 3M, Others to Soon Settle PFAS Injury Cases, Bloomberg Law (June 23, 2025).