Key takeaways

• The recent settlement on November 3 2026 of PFAS-related personal injury claims involving firefighting foam manufacturer 3M, valued at approximately $7.35 billion, is one of the largest toxic tort resolutions in U.S. history.
• PFAS litigation is no longer an environmental issue. It is becoming a product liability issue.
• PFAS compounds have been used in paints and coatings to improve wetting, stain resistance, durability, dirt pickup resistance, and surface properties such as block resistance.
• Eliminating PFAS from formulations and supply chains can help reduce regulatory, legal, and reputational risks while positioning companies to meet evolving customer and market expectations.

By now, everyone in industry has heard about the PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances)  firefighting foam (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam or AFFF) lawsuits. The litigation theories, scientific arguments, and plaintiff playbooks developed in those cases may not stop with foam.

The recent settlement on November 3 2026 of PFAS-related personal injury claims involving firefighting foam manufacturer 3M, valued at approximately $7.35 billion, is one of the largest toxic tort resolutions in U.S. history. According to 3M, the agreement addresses roughly 99% of current personal injury claims involving an estimated 115,000-120,000 claimants.(1) 

This settlement follows earlier drinking water settlements that committed more than $10 billion for PFAS remediation by public water systems.(2)

In April of 2024, a class action suit was filed against Johnson and Johnson concerning the presence of PFAS in Band-Aid products.  The case was dismissed without prejudice earlier this year, meaning the plaintiffs can file an amended complaint.(3)

Together, these cases send a clear message:

PFAS litigation is no longer an environmental issue. It is becoming a product liability issue.  

And that should get the attention of every industry that has historically used fluorinated chemistry, including the coatings industry. 

The next question is not whether attorneys will investigate additional PFAS-containing products.  The question is: which categories present the most attractive targets?

Why Paint Could Draw Attention

Paint is not firefighting foam. Exposure pathways are different. PFAS concentrations are generally different. The risk profiles are different.

However, plaintiff firms do not need identical facts. They need a plausible narrative.

Several environmental organizations and researchers have documented PFAS compounds in certain paints and coatings, often used to improve wetting, stain resistance, durability, dirt pickup resistance, and surface properties such as block resistance.

From a plaintiff's perspective, three arguments become attractive:

1. Personal Injury 

Plaintiffs may argue that PFAS-containing paints create opportunities for exposure during:

• Manufacturing
• Professional application
• DIY application
• Sanding and renovation
• Demolition and disposal

Whether those arguments ultimately prevail is less important than recognizing they can be made.

2. Environmental Release

The most significant litigation risk may not originate inside the paint can.  Instead, it may arise from:

• Manufacturing wastewater
• Plant discharges
• Disposal streams
• Construction and demolition debris
• PFAS migration from painted exterior surfaces

Many of the largest PFAS settlements to date have centered on contamination pathways rather than direct product injury claims. 

3. "You Knew or Should Have Known"

Historically, toxic tort litigation often pivots on corporate knowledge.  Plaintiffs frequently attempt to demonstrate:

• Awareness of hazards
• Failure to investigate
• Failure to warn
• Failure to substitute safer alternatives

Whether such allegations prove successful depends on facts specific to each company, but the document discovery process itself can become extraordinarily expensive.

The Regulatory Environment Is Creating Momentum

Litigation rarely develops in isolation.  The PFAS story is increasingly being driven by:

• State-level bans
• Reporting requirements
• EPA drinking water standards
• International restrictions
• Supply-chain disclosure demands which can involve, for example, declarations from suppliers that their raw materials are PFAS free.

Every new regulation creates additional discovery material, reporting obligations, and recordkeeping requirements.  For plaintiffs' attorneys, those records can become roadmaps.

Lessons for Paint Manufacturers

The most important lesson from the AFFF litigation is not the size of the settlements. It is the speed with which PFAS moved from a niche environmental concern to a boardroom level liability.

Companies should already know:

• Whether PFAS exists anywhere in their formulations
• Whether PFAS enters through raw materials
• Which suppliers provide fluorinated additives
• Whether analytical testing has been performed
• What documentation supports product claims and marketing statements

For some organizations, these questions have already been answered. For others, the answers may be surprisingly unclear.

Not a Prediction, But a Warning

To be clear, there is currently no PFAS litigation wave against the paint industry on the scale of the firefighting foam cases. Paint is not foam, and legal outcomes cannot simply be transferred from one product category to another. But history suggests that mass tort litigation expands outward from the most obvious targets toward adjacent industries that share underlying chemistries, exposure theories, or contamination pathways. That is why the real significance of the firefighting foam settlements may not be the billions already paid. It may be the legal blueprint they leave behind. And every industry that has relied on PFAS chemistry would be wise to study that blueprint carefully.

What Should Coatings Manufacturers Do?

Coatings manufacturers should understand the PFAS status of all products in their portfolio and actively pursue the transition to PFAS-free alternatives. Viable replacement technologies are already available from raw material suppliers, including phosphate-based surfactants and organosilicone additives. In addition, alternative resin chemistries can provide key performance attributes such as block resistance and dirt pickup resistance without relying on PFAS-containing materials.

Manufacturers should also work closely with their supply chains to identify and eliminate potential sources of PFAS contamination in incoming raw materials. Robust supplier disclosure requirements, material reviews, and testing programs can help prevent unintended PFAS ingress.

Going Forward

While it remains uncertain whether PFAS-related litigation will expand significantly into the coatings industry, taking a proactive approach is prudent. Eliminating PFAS from formulations and supply chains can help reduce regulatory, legal, and reputational risks while positioning companies to meet evolving customer and market expectations.

(1) 3M Reaches Broad Resolution of AFFF Personal Injury Litigation - Nov 3, 2026

(2)PFAS Settlements: 3M $10.3B and DuPont $1.185B Agreements Explained (2026) | SuperLawsuits 

(3)  New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses PFAS Consumer Suit Against Band-Aid on Standing Grounds: MGKF Litigation Blog

#PFAS #perfluoroalkylsubstances #polyfluoroalkylsubstances #lawsuit #foreverchemical #chemicals #coatings #consulting

(photo credit: Image created by Microsoft Copilot)