Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation
Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.
Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
PFAS Litigation Deepens as 3M Reaches $450M Deal with New Jersey
From water contamination to consumer products, the legal front over ‘forever chemicals’ is expanding fast.
By Jennifer Holmes
The true cost of forever chemicals is only beginning to emerge.
A Landmark Settlement in Environmental Law
The legal and financial fallout surrounding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly known as “forever chemicals,” continues to grow, with 3M recently agreeing to a $450 million settlement with the state of New Jersey. Announced in May 2025, this deal marks one of the most significant developments in PFAS litigation to date and underscores the expanding landscape of environmental, insurance, and product liability concerns tied to these persistent compounds.
New Jersey’s lawsuit alleged that 3M knowingly contaminated water supplies with PFAS through decades of manufacturing and product use. PFAS are highly resistant to heat, water, and oil—properties that make them useful in a wide range of consumer products but also extremely difficult to eliminate from the environment. The chemicals have been linked to various health risks, including cancer, thyroid disease, and reproductive issues.
The settlement, announced in May 2025, follows a series of similar agreements, including 3M’s $850 million payout to the state of Minnesota in 2018 over PFAS contamination in the Twin Cities area.
However, the New Jersey deal is not yet final. A judicial consent order covering both claims tied to the Chambers Works site and broader statewide contamination is set to be published in the New Jersey Register on July 7, 2025, initiating a 60-day public comment period before it can be approved by the court. Under the agreement’s current structure, 3M will pay $210 million upfront for site-specific claims and reserve an additional $75 million for future statewide claims between 2030 and 2050—payments that will be distributed over a 25-year period.
Meanwhile, a separate bench trial continues against DuPont and Chemours over PFAS contamination at the Chambers Works facility. The New Jersey Attorney General’s office has alleged violations under the Spill Compensation and Control Act and the Water Pollution Control Act, pursuing accountability from other major players beyond 3M.
Product Liability Moves Into the Spotlight
While states and municipalities pursue cleanup and remediation costs, plaintiffs’ attorneys are increasingly targeting major brands alleged to have sold PFAS-containing products without adequate disclosure. One prominent example is Apple, which is now facing legal scrutiny over its watch bands.
In January 2025, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that certain Apple Watch bands—including the Sport Band, Ocean Band, and Nike Sport Band—contain harmful levels of PFAS. The suit claims that these chemicals can be absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream, posing health risks to consumers.
In response to earlier media coverage, Apple defended the safety of its products and denied that the bands pose health risks. The lawsuit raises broader questions about product design, corporate responsibility, and the evidentiary standards required in toxic tort claims involving emerging materials.
Insurance Disputes and Recovery Challenges
PFAS litigation is also creating ripple effects in the insurance industry. As claims multiply, insurers are increasingly resisting PFAS-related payouts, citing policy exclusions or arguing that such liabilities fall outside standard coverage.
Nonetheless, policyholders may still find avenues for recovery under older general liability policies—though success will likely hinge on state-specific precedent and policy language. Because modern general liability policies frequently include pollution or PFAS-specific exclusions, many policyholders are turning to environmental liability policies, which are more tailored to address contamination and cleanup claims. However, these policies are highly variable and proprietary, making legal interpretation more complex.
Regulatory Uncertainty Slows Accountability
Further complicating the legal landscape is ongoing regulatory uncertainty. In 2020, the Trump administration withdrew a draft EPA rule that would have classified PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA. That rollback continues to reverberate in the courts, creating challenges for plaintiffs in the absence of uniform federal standards.
In contrast, the Biden administration finalized the first-ever national drinking water standards for six PFAS compounds in April 2024, including a 4 parts per trillion limit for PFOA and PFOS. However, the Trump administration has since announced plans to roll back portions of these regulations, citing compliance cost concerns for utilities and chemical manufacturers. This regulatory whiplash continues to affect litigation timelines and may delay meaningful accountability.
What Comes Next?
For 3M, the New Jersey settlement is part of a broader effort to resolve thousands of PFAS-related claims across the U.S.—but it may only scratch the surface of potential liability. As litigation extends from manufacturers to retailers and from public water systems to individual consumer claims, the true cost of “forever chemicals” is still unfolding.
With billions of dollars at stake, PFAS litigation is shaping up to be one of the most complex and consequential mass tort landscapes of the decade—blending environmental law, product liability, insurance coverage, and regulatory policy into a sprawling legal challenge with profound implications for public health and corporate accountability.
Jennifer Holmes is a former journalist turned business writer and analyst. She can be reached at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
