AFFF Litigation Update (January 2026): Latest Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Developments
Litigation involving Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) continues to evolve as we enter 2026. Over the past several years, thousands of lawsuits have been filed nationwide alleging that firefighting foam products containing PFAS “forever chemicals” caused serious health risks and widespread environmental contamination.
This January 2026 update builds on prior developments in the AFFF litigation and explains where the lawsuits stand today, what has changed since earlier updates, and what firefighters, military personnel, municipalities, and others exposed to AFFF should know moving forward.
What Is the AFFF Firefighting Foam Litigation?
AFFF is a specialized firefighting foam historically used to suppress fuel-based fires, particularly at military bases, airports, and industrial facilities. Many AFFF formulations contain PFAS, a class of synthetic chemicals known for their persistence in the environment and the human body.
As scientific research and regulatory scrutiny increased, lawsuits were filed against AFFF manufacturers alleging they failed to warn users about the risks associated with PFAS exposure. These cases were consolidated into a federal multidistrict litigation to streamline pretrial proceedings and manage the growing volume of claims.
For a broader overview of how this litigation developed and earlier milestones in the case, readers may wish to review a prior update on AFFF litigation, which outlines the early structure and scope of the lawsuits.
How Big Is the AFFF MDL and Who Is Involved?
The AFFF MDL has become one of the largest environmental and mass tort litigations in U.S. history. It includes claims brought by a wide range of plaintiffs, including:
- Firefighters and military personnel alleging personal injury
- Public water systems seeking compensation for PFAS testing and treatment
- Municipalities and property owners affected by environmental contamination
The sheer size of the MDL reflects how widely AFFF was used for decades and how long PFAS contamination can remain undetected in soil and water.
Major AFFF Lawsuit Developments Heading Into 2026
Public Water System AFFF Settlements
One of the most significant developments in recent years has been the resolution of claims brought by public water systems. These lawsuits focused on the substantial costs associated with identifying, filtering, and remediating PFAS contamination in drinking water.
Several major manufacturers have entered settlement agreements intended to help offset these expenses. While these settlements represent a major step forward for utilities and municipalities, they do not resolve all categories of AFFF-related claims.
In particular, airports and municipal entities that used AFFF extensively continue to pursue claims related to contamination at and around aviation facilities. These cases often involve complex issues of groundwater migration, cleanup responsibility, and long-term environmental impact, which are discussed in more detail in litigation involving airport AFFF and PFAS contamination claims.
Status of Personal Injury AFFF Claims
Personal injury lawsuits remain an active and developing part of the AFFF MDL. These cases typically allege that long-term exposure to firefighting foam contributed to serious medical conditions, including certain cancers and thyroid-related diseases.
Unlike public water system claims, personal injury cases require individualized evidence, such as:
- Documented exposure history
- Medical diagnoses
- Expert testimony linking PFAS exposure to specific health outcomes
As a result, these cases often move on a different timeline and are closely influenced by developments in bellwether trials and expert rulings.
What Are Bellwether Trials and Why Do They Matter in AFFF Cases?
Bellwether trials are selected cases used to test legal theories and evidence in large, complex litigations like the AFFF MDL. While bellwether verdicts do not determine the outcome of all cases, they often shape settlement discussions and influence how remaining claims are evaluated.
In the AFFF litigation, bellwether proceedings help clarify key issues such as:
- What manufacturers knew about PFAS risks
- How exposure occurred in real-world settings
- The strength of scientific evidence linking PFAS to specific injuries
The outcomes of these trials continue to play an important role in how the litigation progresses.
Who May Qualify for an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit?
Eligibility for an AFFF lawsuit depends on the type of claim and the circumstances involved. Individuals who may qualify include firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, and others who experienced repeated exposure to AFFF during training or emergency response activities.
Entities such as municipalities, airports, and water providers may also have claims related to environmental contamination and cleanup costs. A more detailed explanation of eligibility criteria and legal options is available on Stag Liuzza’s firefighting foam lawsuit (AFFF) service page, which outlines how these cases are evaluated.
What Happens Next in the AFFF Litigation?
As 2026 progresses, the AFFF MDL remains active. While some claims have reached resolution, others continue through discovery, expert review, and pretrial litigation. Additional settlements, further bellwether trials, and ongoing scientific research into PFAS exposure may all influence the direction of the case.
Because of the complexity and scale of the litigation, developments often occur incrementally rather than all at once. Staying informed about these changes is important for anyone considering an AFFF-related claim.
Final Thoughts
The AFFF litigation continues to be one of the most significant environmental and personal injury legal proceedings in the country. While progress has been made, particularly for public water systems, many claims remain unresolved as courts and parties work through the remaining issues.
For individuals or entities affected by firefighting foam exposure, understanding how the litigation is evolving and how current developments build on earlier stages of the case can help clarify potential next steps.
Stag Liuzza remains at the forefront of this litigation, representing both individuals and entities who have been harmed by the negative affects of AFFF. If you’re seeking more information or think you might have a claim contact us today.
