PFAS Makers' Share of Federal Land Contamination Lawsuits, FY2006–FY2025
Original analysis of 16,071 records from the Federal Judicial Center, FY2006–FY2025 (federal fiscal years, Oct–Sep), plus FY2026 through June 30, 2026. Published October 20, 2026.
We counted every federal torts-to-land case, the court category for trespass, nuisance and contamination of real property, filed since FY2006 and checked whether the first defendant makes PFAS or firefighting foam.
What the Federal Court Records Show
In fiscal year 2025, 205 of the 732 torts-to-land case records in U.S. district courts, which count transfers into multidistrict litigation, (28.0%) named a PFAS or firefighting-foam maker as the first defendant, most often 3M. Leaving out cases transferred into a multidistrict litigation, which the court data list a second time, the share is 20.3%. Across FY2016 to FY2018 combined, it was 1.4%.
- 28%PFAS maker first, FY2025 records incl. MDL transfers
- 23%3M first, FY2025 records incl. MDL transfers
- 20%PFAS maker first, FY2025 records excl. MDL transfers
More than a quarter of the category
Of 732 torts-to-land case records in FY2025, including transfers into a multidistrict litigation, 205 (28.0%) listed a PFAS or AFFF maker as the first defendant, down from 33.2% in FY2024.
3M is named first in most of them
3M was the first defendant in 167 of the 205 PFAS maker cases in FY2025 (81.5%); AGC Chemicals Americas or AGC Inc. was first in 37.
From almost none to a large share
In FY2016 through FY2018 combined, 29 of 2,046 torts-to-land cases (1.4%) named a PFAS maker first. Among complete fiscal years, the count was highest in FY2023 with 470 cases (37.7%).
Many arrive through removal or the MDL
Of the FY2025 PFAS maker cases, 94 were removed from state court and 76 were transferred into a multidistrict litigation; 31 were filed directly in federal court.
Two courts hold most of the cases
The District of South Carolina received 104 PFAS maker cases in FY2025 and the Southern District of New York 62, together 81.0% of the national total. Many South Carolina records are MDL transfers of suits also counted in the district where they were filed or removed.
Partial FY2026 data
From October 2025 through June 2026, 233 of 608 torts-to-land cases (38.3%) named a PFAS maker first; the year is incomplete and courts are still reporting cases.
What Share of Federal Land Contamination Lawsuits Name PFAS Makers
PFAS and firefighting-foam makers went from a handful of federal torts-to-land cases a year to more than a quarter of the category's records, which include transfers into a multidistrict litigation.
In FY2025, 28.0% of federal torts-to-land case records, including transfers into a multidistrict litigation, named a PFAS or AFFF maker as first defendant, compared with 11.3% in FY2021 and 1.4% across FY2016 to FY2018.
Federal courts file suits alleging trespass to land, nuisance or contamination of real property under nature of suit code 240, and related property product liability claims under code 245. The official caseload table of the U.S. courts reports both together as torts to land, including product liability.
Cases with a PFAS maker as first defendant rose from 29 in FY2016 through FY2018 combined to 470 in FY2023, when they made up 37.7% of the category. In FY2024 the share was 33.2%; in FY2025 it was 28.0%, as total filings in the category fell from 1,164 to 732.
Share of torts-to-land cases with a PFAS or AFFF maker as first defendant
- FY2026 (Oct-Jun, partial)38.3%233 of 608 cases
- FY202528.0%205 of 732 cases
- FY202433.2%387 of 1,164 cases
- FY202337.7%470 of 1,246 cases
- FY202226.7%228 of 854 cases
- FY202111.3%76 of 673 cases
- FY20203.6%26 of 732 cases
- FY20199.6%81 of 841 cases
- FY20182.2%15 of 693 cases
- FY20171.2%7 of 604 cases
- FY20160.9%7 of 749 cases
All fiscal years since FY2006
- FY20150.1%2 of 1,547 cases
- FY20140.2%1 of 586 cases
- FY20131.1%7 of 634 cases
- FY20120.1%1 of 853 cases
- FY20111.3%7 of 558 cases
- FY20100.2%1 of 652 cases
- FY20090.2%1 of 571 cases
- FY20080.2%1 of 506 cases
- FY20070.0%0 of 804 cases
- FY20060.2%1 of 464 cases
Federal fiscal years run from October 1 to September 30. FY2026 covers only October 2025 through June 2026 and is preliminary.
Which PFAS Makers Are Named Most Often
3M is the first-listed defendant in the large majority of these cases.
From FY2021 through FY2025, 3M was the first defendant in 1,164 federal torts-to-land cases and AGC Chemicals Americas or AGC Inc. in 124.
Across FY2021 to FY2025, 1,366 of 4,669 torts-to-land cases (29.3%) named a PFAS or AFFF maker first. The DuPont group includes E. I. du Pont de Nemours (now EIDP), Chemours, Corteva and DowDuPont; other makers include Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard, Kidde-Fenwal, Dynax, Archroma, Clariant and Solvay.
Because court records store only the first-listed defendant, a suit against several of these companies is counted once, under whichever company the complaint lists first.
Torts-to-land cases by PFAS maker named as first defendant
| First defendant | FY2025 | FY2021–25 |
|---|---|---|
| 3M Company | 167 | 1,164 |
| AGC Chemicals Americas / AGC Inc. | 37 | 124 |
| Other PFAS or AFFF makers | 0 | 60 |
| DuPont, Chemours, Corteva (incl. EIDP, DowDuPont) | 1 | 18 |
How PFAS Land Contamination Suits Reach Federal Court
Most PFAS maker cases in this category did not start as ordinary federal filings.
Of 205 PFAS maker cases in FY2025, 94 were removed from state court, 76 were transferred into a multidistrict litigation and 31 were filed directly in federal court.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized federal cases over PFAS in firefighting foam in the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, in the District of South Carolina. In FY2025, 98 of the PFAS maker cases in this category carried that MDL number.
A case transferred into the MDL appears in the court data once in the district where it was filed and again in South Carolina. Counting only cases that did not arrive by MDL transfer, 129 of 637 torts-to-land cases (20.3%) named a PFAS maker first in FY2025.
FY2025 torts-to-land cases by how they reached federal court
| Origin | PFAS makers | Other | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removed from state court | 94 | 202 | 31.8% |
| Transferred into an MDL (28 U.S.C. 1407) | 76 | 19 | 80.0% |
| Filed directly in federal court | 31 | 280 | 10.0% |
| Reopened, remanded or transferred | 4 | 26 | 13.3% |
Filed directly includes cases filed directly in the MDL court in South Carolina.
Which Federal Courts Get the Most PFAS Land Contamination Suits
PFAS maker cases are concentrated in two federal districts.
The District of South Carolina received 104 torts-to-land cases with a PFAS maker as first defendant in FY2025, the most of any district, followed by the Southern District of New York with 62.
In the District of South Carolina, home of the AFFF MDL, 79.4% of all torts-to-land cases filed in FY2025 named a PFAS maker first. In the Southern District of New York, 62 of 64 cases did. PFAS maker cases were filed in 25 of the 80 districts that received any torts-to-land case in FY2025.
The ranking is by number of cases. It does not account for population or for where contamination occurred, and a case transferred into the MDL is listed both in the district where it was filed or removed and again under South Carolina.
Torts-to-land cases with a PFAS maker as first defendant, FY2025
| District | PFAS cases | All cases | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Carolina | 104 | 131 | 79.4% |
| S.D. New York | 62 | 64 | 96.9% |
| E.D. North Carolina | 6 | 13 | 46.2% |
| W.D. Pennsylvania | 3 | 6 | 50.0% |
| Delaware | 3 | 4 | 75.0% |
| M.D. Alabama | 3 | 4 | 75.0% |
| New Jersey | 2 | 20 | 10.0% |
| E.D. New York | 2 | 19 | 10.5% |
| Massachusetts | 2 | 12 | 16.7% |
| N.D. New York | 2 | 4 | 50.0% |
All districts
| District | PFAS cases | All cases | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vermont | 2 | 2 | 100.0% |
| C.D. California | 1 | 49 | 2.0% |
| N.D. California | 1 | 26 | 3.8% |
| E.D. Pennsylvania | 1 | 15 | 6.7% |
| M.D. Florida | 1 | 12 | 8.3% |
| Maryland | 1 | 12 | 8.3% |
| E.D. Virginia | 1 | 8 | 12.5% |
| M.D. Georgia | 1 | 7 | 14.3% |
| M.D. Pennsylvania | 1 | 6 | 16.7% |
| S.D. Ohio | 1 | 6 | 16.7% |
| N.D. Alabama | 1 | 5 | 20.0% |
| Montana | 1 | 3 | 33.3% |
| S.D. Georgia | 1 | 3 | 33.3% |
| E.D. Oklahoma | 1 | 2 | 50.0% |
| Maine | 1 | 2 | 50.0% |
| S.D. Texas | 0 | 21 | 0.0% |
| Colorado | 0 | 17 | 0.0% |
| E.D. Louisiana | 0 | 14 | 0.0% |
| New Mexico | 0 | 13 | 0.0% |
| N.D. Ohio | 0 | 11 | 0.0% |
| S.D. California | 0 | 11 | 0.0% |
| W.D. Louisiana | 0 | 11 | 0.0% |
| E.D. Michigan | 0 | 10 | 0.0% |
| N.D. Illinois | 0 | 10 | 0.0% |
| W.D. Missouri | 0 | 9 | 0.0% |
| Kansas | 0 | 7 | 0.0% |
| E.D. California | 0 | 6 | 0.0% |
| N.D. Georgia | 0 | 6 | 0.0% |
| N.D. Texas | 0 | 6 | 0.0% |
| S.D. Indiana | 0 | 6 | 0.0% |
| S.D. West Virginia | 0 | 6 | 0.0% |
| Virgin Islands | 0 | 6 | 0.0% |
| W.D. Michigan | 0 | 6 | 0.0% |
| W.D. Oklahoma | 0 | 6 | 0.0% |
| Connecticut | 0 | 5 | 0.0% |
| E.D. Missouri | 0 | 5 | 0.0% |
| E.D. Texas | 0 | 5 | 0.0% |
| M.D. Louisiana | 0 | 5 | 0.0% |
| S.D. Alabama | 0 | 5 | 0.0% |
| Utah | 0 | 5 | 0.0% |
| W.D. Tennessee | 0 | 5 | 0.0% |
| Arizona | 0 | 4 | 0.0% |
| E.D. Tennessee | 0 | 4 | 0.0% |
| N.D. Florida | 0 | 4 | 0.0% |
| N.D. West Virginia | 0 | 4 | 0.0% |
| Nebraska | 0 | 4 | 0.0% |
| Nevada | 0 | 4 | 0.0% |
| North Dakota | 0 | 4 | 0.0% |
| Oregon | 0 | 4 | 0.0% |
| District of Columbia | 0 | 3 | 0.0% |
| Minnesota | 0 | 3 | 0.0% |
| New Hampshire | 0 | 3 | 0.0% |
| Puerto Rico | 0 | 3 | 0.0% |
| S.D. Illinois | 0 | 3 | 0.0% |
| W.D. Arkansas | 0 | 3 | 0.0% |
| W.D. New York | 0 | 3 | 0.0% |
| W.D. Texas | 0 | 3 | 0.0% |
| W.D. Virginia | 0 | 3 | 0.0% |
| E.D. Kentucky | 0 | 2 | 0.0% |
| E.D. Washington | 0 | 2 | 0.0% |
| E.D. Wisconsin | 0 | 2 | 0.0% |
| Hawaii | 0 | 2 | 0.0% |
| Idaho | 0 | 2 | 0.0% |
| M.D. North Carolina | 0 | 2 | 0.0% |
| N.D. Indiana | 0 | 2 | 0.0% |
| South Dakota | 0 | 2 | 0.0% |
| W.D. North Carolina | 0 | 2 | 0.0% |
| C.D. Illinois | 0 | 1 | 0.0% |
| S.D. Florida | 0 | 1 | 0.0% |
| S.D. Iowa | 0 | 1 | 0.0% |
PFAS cases: a PFAS or AFFF maker is the first-listed defendant. All cases: every torts-to-land case filed in the district in FY2025.
Download the Data and Cite This Study
Every table as a CSV file and in one Excel workbook, a short PDF summary and every chart as an image, free to reuse with attribution (CC BY 4.0).
- Torts-to-land cases by PFAS maker named as first defendantTorts to land cases (nature of suit 240 and 245) whose first-listed defendant belongs to each PFAS or AFFF manufacturer group, FY2025 and FY2021-FY2025 combined. · 4 rows · CSV, 1 KB
- Torts-to-land cases against PFAS makers by federal district, FY2025Torts to land cases (nature of suit 240 and 245) filed in each U.S. district court in FY2025 (Oct 2024-Sep 2025) and the number and share whose first-listed defendant is a PFAS or AFFF maker. · 80 rows · CSV, 2 KB
- Federal torts-to-land cases and cases against PFAS makers by fiscal yearTorts to land and real-property tort product liability cases (nature of suit 240 and 245) filed in U.S. district courts per federal fiscal year, and those whose first-listed defendant is a PFAS or AFFF maker; FY2026 covers Oct 2025-Jun 2026 only. · 21 rows · CSV, 1 KB
- How FY2025 torts-to-land cases reached federal court, PFAS makers vs. other defendantsFY2025 torts to land cases (nature of suit 240 and 245) by origin code: filed directly, removed from state court, transferred into a multidistrict litigation, or reopened/remanded/transferred. · 4 rows · CSV, 1 KB
- All tables in one Excel workbookOne sheet per table plus an About sheet with sources, method and citation · Excel (.xlsx), 16 KB
- Summary to print or forward (3 pages)Short answer, key figures, main chart, findings, method and citation · PDF, 181 KB
Charts for your story
Share of torts-to-land cases with a PFAS or AFFF maker as first defendant
Embed this chart
Torts-to-land cases by PFAS maker named as first defendant
Embed this chart
FY2025 torts-to-land cases by how they reached federal court
Embed this chart
Torts-to-land cases with a PFAS maker as first defendant, FY2025
Embed this chart
How to cite
Goldberg, L. (2026). PFAS Makers in Federal Torts-to-Land Lawsuits — Cases and Share by Fiscal Year, District and Company (FY2006–FY2025) [Data set]. Settlement Insight. https://settlementinsight.com/research/pfas-share-property-contamination-lawsuits
BibTeX
@dataset{goldberg_2026_pfas_share_property_contamination_lawsuits,
author = {Goldberg, Leonard},
title = {PFAS Makers in Federal Torts-to-Land Lawsuits --- Cases and Share by Fiscal Year, District and Company (FY2006--FY2025)},
year = {2026},
publisher = {Settlement Insight},
url = {https://settlementinsight.com/research/pfas-share-property-contamination-lawsuits}
}How We Measured
Checked against published figures
- Torts to land cases, including product liability (nature of suit 240 + 245), commenced in U.S. district courts, 12 months ending Sep 30, 2025: published 733, our count 732 (0.14% apart).Table C-2. U.S. District Courts - Civil Cases Commenced, by Basis of Jurisdiction and Nature of Suit, During the 12-Month Periods Ending September 30, 2024 and 2025
- Torts to land cases, including product liability (nature of suit 240 + 245), commenced in U.S. district courts, 12 months ending Sep 30, 2024: published 1,162, our count 1,164 (0.17% apart).Table C-2. U.S. District Courts - Civil Cases Commenced, by Basis of Jurisdiction and Nature of Suit, During the 12-Month Periods Ending September 30, 2024 and 2025
Full method and limits of the data
A case counts as a PFAS maker case when the first-listed defendant, after removing punctuation and spaces and a leading "The", begins with the name of one of these makers of PFAS chemicals or firefighting foam: 3M (incl. Minnesota Mining); E. I. du Pont de Nemours in any spelling (EI DuPont, EIDP, DuPont), DowDuPont, Chemours or Corteva; AGC Chemicals Americas or AGC Inc.; Tyco Fire Products; Chemguard; Kidde-Fenwal; Kidde PLC; National Foam; Buckeye Fire Equipment; Dynax; Archroma; Clariant; Solvay; Daikin America; or the AFFF defendant named exactly Chemicals, Inc. Prefix matching is needed because the court data cut defendant names at about 30 characters, as in 3M Company f/k/a Minnesota Mining. Not counted are companies that used or released PFAS but are not listed makers, such as Saint-Gobain or Wolverine, and other chemical or equipment companies including The Dow Chemical Company, BASF, Honeywell, Carrier, Arkema, Walter Kidde Portable Equipment and Kidde Technologies. The peak year is the fiscal year with the most PFAS maker cases among the complete years FY2006 to FY2025; partial FY2026 is excluded.
Like the official caseload tables, we count every record the courts report as commenced, including removals, reopened cases and cases transferred into a multidistrict litigation. To check the method, we compared our totals with Table C-2 of the U.S. courts: we count 732 cases in FY2025 against 733 published and 1,164 in FY2024 against 1,162 published. A second share leaves out cases transferred into an MDL under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (origin code 6), so that a suit transferred into the MDL is not counted a second time.
What this data cannot tell you
- The court data list only the first defendant. A suit that names 3M or another PFAS maker second or later is not counted, so the shares are a lower bound.
- The court data do not record which substance a case is about. A small number of suits against these companies, especially before FY2019, may concern other chemicals or sites.
- Records are not the same as lawsuits. A case transferred into the AFFF MDL appears twice, and in FY2025 8 PFAS maker records repeat a docket number already counted in the same district. The share without MDL transfers (20.3%) avoids most of this double counting.
- Many PFAS suits, including most personal injury claims and some water utility claims, are filed under other nature of suit codes and are not part of this category. The figures describe torts-to-land cases only, not all PFAS litigation.
- FY2026 figures cover October 2025 through June 2026 only. Courts can add or correct cases for recent months in later FJC releases, so these counts can still change; a comparison of the partial year with full years is not a trend.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many federal lawsuits name 3M over PFAS contamination of land?
In FY2025, 3M was the first-listed defendant in 167 of the 732 torts-to-land cases filed in U.S. district courts (22.8%). From FY2021 through FY2025 the count was 1,164. Suits that name 3M as a later defendant are not included, and a suit transferred into the AFFF MDL is counted in both courts.
What share of land contamination lawsuits are PFAS lawsuits?
In FY2025, 28.0% of federal torts-to-land cases named a PFAS or firefighting-foam maker as first defendant. Without cases transferred into a multidistrict litigation, the share was 20.3%.
Where are PFAS lawsuits filed in federal court?
The largest number of records is in the District of South Carolina, where the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) is centralized: 104 torts-to-land cases against PFAS makers in FY2025. The Southern District of New York followed with 62.
Are PFAS lawsuits against AGC Chemicals increasing?
AGC Chemicals Americas or AGC Inc. was the first defendant in 37 federal torts-to-land cases in FY2025 and in 83 in FY2024, after 2 in FY2023.
What is the AFFF lawsuit MDL?
MDL No. 2873 in the District of South Carolina gathers federal cases alleging that firefighting foams containing PFAS contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports and industrial sites. In FY2025, 105 torts-to-land cases carried that MDL number.
Do these numbers include all PFAS lawsuits?
No. They cover only federal cases classified as torts to land (codes 240 and 245) with a PFAS maker as first defendant. Personal injury suits and cases filed under other codes or in state courts are not included.
Sources
- Integrated Database (IDB), Civil Cases — Federal Judicial Center
- Table C-2. U.S. District Courts - Civil Cases Commenced, by Basis of Jurisdiction and Nature of Suit (September 30, 2025) — Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
- Integrated Database Civil Codebook, 1988 Forward — Federal Judicial Center
- Civil Nature of Suit Code Descriptions — Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
- JS 44 Civil Cover Sheet and Instructions — U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
- Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873 — U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
Independent analysis. Settlement Insight is not a law firm and not affiliated with any agency named here. Analysis by Leonard Goldberg, Editor. How we work: methodology, our data.
More Research and Data
Other studies from our database of public legal records — each with free CSV downloads.
Related research
- How Long MDLs LastHow long federal multidistrict litigations run from creation to close.
- Product Liability Outcomes in Federal CourtHow federal product liability cases end, from settlement to trial.
- Federal Lawsuit OutcomesSettlement and trial rates across federal civil case types.
- Credit Bureaus' Share of Consumer Credit LawsuitsHow many federal consumer credit suits name Equifax, Experian or TransUnion first.
Latest studies
- Debt collector lawsuit complaintsEncore (Midland) drew 1,034 CFPB debt-lawsuit complaints in 2024–2025, more than any other company
- Repeat plaintiffs in housing suitsOne organization was first plaintiff in 17.5% of federal housing discrimination cases, FY2021–FY2025
- Identity Theft Debt ComplaintsEquifax, TransUnion and Experian: 47% of 2025 identity-theft debt collection complaints to the CFPB
- Seattle gig companies' share88% of Seattle's 2025 labor-standards remedies came from gig companies