Case guide
Trying to match a foam product or PFAS headline to a company? Check the label, dates and exact legal names.
Updated Oct 4, 202617 sources
See If You Qualify
Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes
Updated Oct 4, 202617 sources
This may apply to you if
These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.
Richard M. Gergel · United States District Court for the District of South Carolina · United States District Judge
Finding: The August 31, 2026 order sets expert-motion dates for thyroid and liver cancer. It does not set an individual payment.
District of South Carolina: CMO33F (opens in a new tab) · Aug 31, 2026 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
International Agency for Research on Cancer · World Health Organization · Publisher of the cancer hazard assessment
Finding: PFOA is classed as able to cause cancer; PFOS as possibly able to cause cancer. The classifications do not measure individual risk at a given dose.
IARC: PFOA/PFOS evaluation Q&A (opens in a new tab) · Dec 1, 2023 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
Richard M. Gergel · United States District Court for the District of South Carolina · United States District Judge
Finding: The February 8, 2024 order approves a defined public water-system class settlement. That approval is not an individual cancer award.
District of South Carolina: DuPont Public Water System Final Approval (opens in a new tab) · Feb 8, 2024 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
International Agency for Research on Cancer · 2023
Read the source: PFOA and PFOS cancer hazard evaluation (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026
Not covered by this case
The process
You answer a few questions
About two minutes. Nothing is sent until you agree on the last step and press submit.
A lawyer looks at it
A lawyer at the firm reads your answers and checks them against the current case criteria.
The firm decides and gets in touch
If the firm takes your case, you get the terms in writing to read before you sign. You can always say no.
Trying to match a foam product or PFAS headline to a company? Check the label, dates and exact legal names. A water-system deal does not decide your injury claim.
No. Check the exact name in the product or case record. A headline may shorten the names of several separate parties.
The February 2024 water-system order lists Chemours, DuPont, Corteva and EIDP entities. The 3M water-system approval is a separate record. These names do not by themselves establish who made a product you used at a particular time.
Keep the label, product name and dates if you have them. Note which details are uncertain. Do not guess the company from the foam’s look.
NIOSH describes PFAS in some liquid-fuel firefighting foams and possible work exposure. It does not identify every product in a reader’s history. Ask a lawyer how to seek missing purchase or training records without changing what you recall.
The listed deals cover defined public water-system claims. They address that class and its costs. They are not payments for every household’s illness.
The DuPont approval concerns alleged water testing and treatment costs. Its class excludes some independent private wells. The administrator FAQ records defendant denials; settlement does not mean those allegations were all proved.
The 3M FAQ describes a different defined class and exclusions. Read the original deal before treating either headline as a personal offer.
No. A hazard finding does not prove which product you used or caused your illness. Each claim needs its own facts.
IARC assessed cancer hazards for PFOA and PFOS. It did not determine the manufacturer of a reader’s foam or assign liability for a person’s disease. ATSDR also describes limits of blood testing.
List the product, site and use dates you know. Keep health reports separate from those details. Give a lawyer the original records rather than a guessed label.
An exposure history can include direct work contact or affected water. PFAS can have other sources too. A covered health provider can explain how to request records for your own care history.
Ask which party and claim the lawyer would review. Ask about the time limit and costs in writing. Confirm who will handle your files.
General deadline guidance and the ABA model fee rule describe questions to resolve. They do not certify company responsibility, acceptance by a firm or an individual result. If you have counsel, discuss the new record with that lawyer first.
Relative risk of 1.74 for kidney cancer among individuals with high PFAS exposure compared to low-exposure controls
PFAS manufacturers knew about the persistence and toxicity of their products as early as 1970 — more than 50 years before widespread public awareness
Determined "probable link" between PFOA exposure and six diseases: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, and pregnancy-induced hypertension
The review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.
Register your interest3M is the largest defendant because it was the primary manufacturer of PFOS-based AFFF from the 1960s through 2000, making it the single largest source of PFAS environmental contamination from firefighting foam. 3M developed AFFF in partnership with the U.S. Navy, supplied it to military installations, airports, and fire departments nationwide for nearly four decades, and has the most extensive documented history of internal knowledge about PFAS toxicity. 3M's own 1970s studies showed workers' PFAS blood levels at 1,000 times normal.
DuPont's internal knowledge of PFOA toxicity is one of the most well-documented cases of corporate concealment in environmental law. Key facts: In 1980, 2 of 8 pregnancies among PFOA-exposed workers resulted in birth defects — DuPont concealed this from regulators. Throughout the 1990s, DuPont's own animal studies showed PFOA caused tumors in rats — the company continued discharging PFOA into the Ohio River. DuPont did not disclose PFOA contamination of community drinking water until forced to by litigation. Attorney Robert Bilott's 2001 lawsuit against DuPont exposed decades of concealment and led to the creation of the C8 Science Panel. The 2023 article "The Devil They Knew" documented that manufacturers knew of PFAS dangers by 1970.
Yes. DuPont restructured into three separate companies: DuPont de Nemours (successor company), Chemours (spun off in 2015 to assume fluorochemical liabilities), and Corteva Agriscience (spun off in 2019). Courts have generally held that corporate restructurings do not eliminate liability for pre-existing torts, and the three-company structure has been criticized as an attempt to isolate liabilities rather than accept responsibility.
Checked against 14 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated
How we make moneyPeople's Justice research team · Updated Oct 4, 2026