Disputes over so-called ‘forever chemicals’ look likely increasingly to trouble courts and re…
Disputes over so-called ‘forever chemicals’ look likely increasingly to trouble courts and regulators for some time to come, while a patchwork global legislative landscape does manufacturers no favours.
The global debate surrounding per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), widely known as ‘forever chemicals’, has sharpened considerably as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the European Union, among others, ramp up their regulatory controls amid ballooning litigation. With implications for environmental health, corporate liability and transnational policy alignment, the past year or so has produced some landmark legal settlements and major regulatory proposals.
US: ESCALATING LITIGATION AMID UNCERTAIN FEDERAL POLICY
In the US, PFAS litigation has reached crescendo point. As of December 2024, attorneys general from thirty states and the District of Columbia had filed lawsuits against PFAS manufacturers – primarily 3M, DuPont and related entities – seeking redress for contamination of drinking water and other natural resources. In 2023, 3M agreed to a staggering USD 10.3 billion settlement with public water systems, while DuPont and its affiliates settled claims for a comparatively modest USD 1.2 billion.
Most recently, on 4 August, the State of New Jersey reached an agreement with Chemours, DuPont and Corteva to pay a total of up to USD 2 billion – comprising USD 875 million in payments over 25 years and up to USD 1.2 billion for a remediation fund – making it the largest environmental settlement in state history. This follows earlier PFAS‐related settlements in the northeastern state totalling some USD 450 million by 3M.
Against this backdrop, federal regulation remains in a state of flux. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act for six PFAS in April 2024, yet in May 2025 it announced it would rescind and reconsider limits on four compounds – a move that extends compliance deadlines to 2031 and preserves only perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) limits in place. The EPA has also classified PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and is reviewing reporting deadlines under 1976 Toxic Substances Contral Act, pushing many manufacturer obligations back to October 2026 (April 2027 for small businesses).
As these changes unfold, more than 250 legislative proposals addressing PFAS have been introduced in 36 states, with jurisdictions including Maine and Delaware enacting stricter limits on PFAS in consumer goods and drinking water, and others, including New Mexico, moving to classify PFAS as hazardous waste. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s environmental regulator may require remediation of PFAS even before a formal hazardous classification, reinforcing that polluters can be compelled under existing ‘spills law’ once contamination is detected.
Together, these developments reveal a fragmented legal and regulatory environment. But with a mercurial administration in the White House, states are stepping into the breach, generating a complex patchwork of protections and liabilities.
CANADA: SWEEPING NEW PROPOSALS
In Canada, the government has taken a more centralised regulatory approach. In March 2025, it released the final State of PFAS report, wherein it signalled its intention to classify nearly all PFAS – apart from fluoropolymers – as “toxic” under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999. This followed December 2024’s release of a drinking water quality objective for PFAS that strengthened monitoring and thresholds nationwide.
Like its southern neighbour, Canada’s legal landscape is still evolving; while litigation is less advanced than in the US, pressure on manufacturers and public authorities is mounting as regulatory classification and public awareness intersect.
GREAT BRITAIN: GROWING LEGAL EXPOSURE AND REGULATORY GAPS
In Britain, PFAS regulation is governed by the post‑Brexit UK REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regime for England, Scotland and Wales, while Northern Ireland remains under EU REACH via the Northern Ireland Protocol. UK REACH currently restricts certain PFAS, such as PFOA and perfluorinated silane but many thousands of PFAS substances remain.
This limited regulatory reach – not least its exclusion of fluoropolymers and lengthy approval processes – leaves businesses vulnerable to litigation, with political scrutiny of PFAS regulation intensifying following a parliamentary inquiry by the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. In its final report published on 5 July 2023, the inquiry concluded that “persistent chemical pollution” posed a growing threat to public health and the environment, and warned that government inaction was placing communities and ecosystems at risk.
The Committee criticised the UK’s fragmented approach to PFAS oversight, noting that regulatory gaps persisted despite mounting evidence of harm. It called for a coordinated, UK-wide action plan, faster testing regimes and stronger public transparency. Importantly, it urged the government to consider a class-based restriction on PFAS, echoing strategies being pursued by the European Union and Canada.
While the government responded to the report in October 2023 by acknowledging the need for improved monitoring and industry engagement, it stopped short of committing to a full class-based ban. Instead, it pledged to work within the existing UK REACH framework and to support ongoing research into PFAS alternatives and exposure risks.
EU: A UNIFIED STRATEGY AND RUMBLINGS OF LITIGATION
The EU is pursuing a coordinated, class-based regulatory approach. Under REACH, POP (persistent organic pollutants) legislation and inclusion on the SVHC (Substances of Very High Concern) list, several PFAS have already been restricted. A universal ban across thousands of PFAS is expected to come into force by 2026 as part of the EU PFAS Action Plan, which also targets firefighting foam, textiles and consumer goods.
Meanwhile, PFAS litigation in Europe is on the up. In Belgium, 3M has already settled environmental pollution claims for USD 581 million while, in Sweden, a Supreme Court 2023 ruling declared that municipal water containing PFAS at levels exceeding thresholds constituted a defective product under Swedish product liability law.
In France, authorities in Saint‑Louis prohibited tap water for vulnerable populations in July 2025 once PFAS contamination from firefighting foam linked to Basel–Mulhouse–Freiburg Airport was uncovered. The crisis triggered regional filtration investments of EUR 20 million and has become a potent example of potential EU‑wide water safety crises. With more than 2,300 European sites projected to exceed impending limits, the region is acting as a potential legal and regulatory bellwether.
TRENDS, COMMONALITIES AND DIVERGENCE
Across all four jurisdictions, several common themes are emerging. First, mass litigation has surged in response to long‑term environmental and health harm attributed to PFAS exposure. The US remains ahead in terms of volume and scale, with federal and state claims driving multi‑billion‑dollar settlements. Canada is advancing quickly on regulation but lags in high‑value litigation to date. In the UK, legal risk is growing but formal case law is limited. In the EU, litigation is nascent while regulatory momentum is building.
Second, the regulatory strategy is diverging. The EU and Canada favour comprehensive, class‑based bans covering thousands of PFAS, while the UK and US adopt compound‑specific restrictions or, in the US case, rely on a combination of federal limits and state action. This divergence can only add layers of complexity for multinational manufacturers and users of PFAS-containing goods.
Third, the industry’s response reflects an increasing exposure to litigation risk, most notable in the US where, despite the EPA’s intent to pre‑empt strict state limits via yet-to-materialise federal legislation, many states are proceeding independently, demonstrating broader public and corporate pressure to remediate contamination regardless of federal stasis.
These chemicals are now the focus of sweeping regulatory strategies, complex litigation and scientific assessments across North America and Europe, and PFAS litigation and regulation are poised to become defining features of environmental policy and corporate liability in the coming decade. As jurisdictions cross‑refer one another’s precedents – whether courts in Sweden citing US litigators, or EU regulators drawing on Canadian scientists, both of which have already happened – the ecosystem of PFAS governance is becoming global. Future cases, corporate disclosure and scientific studies will likely reinforce an emerging consensus: PFAS are no longer acceptable and polluters will be compelled to pay the price.