Firefighting foams, commonly known as Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF), have long been hailed as indispensable tools for combating flammable liquid fires. However, the recent multidistrict litigation (MDL) surrounding AFFF has shed light on the potential health and environmental risks associated with these firefighting agents. Today, we explore the intricacies of the AFFF MDL and its implications for both victims and responsible parties. 
Understanding AFFF and its Concerns
AFFF is a firefighting foam that contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals used in various industrial applications due to their resistance to heat, grease, and water. While PFAS have been shown to effectively suppress fires, they have also raised significant concerns because of their persistence in the environment and potential health risks. 
Studies have linked exposure to PFAS, such as those present in AFFF, with adverse health effects, including cancer, kidney damage, developmental issues, and immune system suppression. Additionally, PFAS are known to persist in the environment, resulting in contamination of drinking water sources and soil. 
The Emergence of the AFFF Multidistrict Litigation Lawsuit
The AFFF MDL stems from claims made by individuals, communities, and governmental entities impacted by the alleged harm caused by PFAS exposure. Numerous manufacturers, distributors, and users of AFFF are currently facing lawsuits for their role in contaminating water supplies and failing to adequately warn consumers about the potential dangers. 
The MDL, centralized in the US District Court for the District of South Carolina under Judge Richard M. Gergel, encompasses a multitude of cases against defendants such as 3M Company, DuPont, Chemours, and others. The centralization of these cases streamlines the litigation process, reduces redundancy, and allows for efficient management of discovery proceedings. 
Implications for Victims and Responsible Parties
For victims of PFAS exposure, the AFFF MDL offers an opportunity to seek justice for the harm they believe they have suffered. Successful plaintiffs may be eligible for compensation to cover medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, property damage, and other related costs.
On the other hand, companies named as defendants in the AFFF MDL face the prospect of significant financial liabilities, reputation damage, and potentially having to reconsider their use of PFAS-containing products. This litigation serves as a reminder that manufacturers and distributors have a duty to ensure the safety of their products and sufficiently warn consumers of any potential risks associated with their use.
The AFFF multidistrict litigation lawsuit highlights the potential dangers associated with firefighting foams containing PFAS and the need for accountability within the industry. As the legal proceedings progress, it is crucial to monitor the outcomes and implications of this case for victims, defendants, and ultimately, the regulation of firefighting foam usage.
Disclaimer: This blog is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. If you require legal assistance, please consult a qualified attorney familiar with AFFF litigation.
If you or a loved one has been a victim of Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, give us a call at the Michael Brady Lynch Firm at 888-585-5970.
Date: June 30, 2023
Author: Brandon Salter and Anoop Desai