Major PFAS class action could lead to multi-billion dollar claim figure

Major PFAS class action could lead to multi-billion-dollar claim figure Fri 12 Jun 2026 at 5:14am In short: Hundreds of businesses and organisations are part of a major Victorian Supreme Court class action against chemical manufacturer 3M over PFAS. The ABC understands the total value of the compensation being sought could run into the billions of dollars. The company has vowed to defend itself in the face of the court action. A giant PFAS class action has been launched against chemical manufacturer 3M in Victoria's Supreme Court, which the ABC understands includes hundreds of businesses and organisations and could result in compensation claims reaching into billions of dollars. The class action was first filed in the Victorian Supreme Court in late 2024, but documents outlining the case have only recently been released to the ABC. In those documents, lawyers for the plaintiffs say they believe this to be the first Australian class action to be filed against 3M over products containing PFAS. The class action is so large, the ABC understands the total value of the compensation being sought could end up even higher than the $2-billion claim recently made by the federal government, in its separate litigation against 3M over PFAS contamination on Defence Force bases. 3M has said it will defend itself against both the federal government and the class action claims. PFAS chemicals have been widely used around the globe in products such as firefighting foam, cookware, cleaning products, water resistant fabrics, carpets and make-up to help make products become resistant to heat, grease and water. The US EPA explains that many of these so-called forever chemicals "break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals and the environment over time". 3M and other manufacturers of PFAS products have been facing waves of PFAS litigation across the globe, with thousands of cases before US courts. Some of those civil cases have been settled for eye-watering sums, including a $US10 billion ($14.29 billion) settlement by 3M to US public water systems in 2023 which 3M said "was not an admission of liability". The issue has become so big a Hollywood film was made about the issue — Dark Waters stars Mark Ruffalo and tells the story of lawyer, Rob Bilott, who pursued legal claims against chemical manufacturer DuPont over PFAS contamination. What we know about the Victorian class action The Victorian Supreme Court recently released to the ABC several documents filed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, as part of the Victorian PFAS class action. The documents reveal that the group suing 3M includes businesses and organisations which own or have owned Australian sites where 3M PFAS products were used, businesses or organisations which own sites that PFAS has migrated onto, and businesses or organisations affected by PFAS impacting water supplies or wastewater systems. The court documents outline the key allegations against 3M. Documents filed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, list five companies which were part of Qenos Group as the lead plaintiffs. Qenos was a large plastics and chemical manufacturer with plants at Altona in Melbourne and Botany in Sydney until it was placed into administration in 2024. An affidavit from Corrs Chambers Westgarth partner Michael Catchpoole states that PFAS-based firefighting foam was used at the Qenos Altona site from around 1980. Mr Catchpoole said company records show Qenos purchased 3M's Light Water firefighting foam between 1998 and 2014. He said he believed 3M's firefighting foam which contained PFAS was used on the Altona site "during firefighting training, equipment testing and in responding to fire, chemical spill and other incidents". Mr Catchpoole said in December 2016 the EPA served Qenos with a clean up notice relating to actual or likely PFAS contamination at its Altona site. In a statement of claim, the plaintiffs outline the major allegations against 3M in the case. The plaintiffs state that from no later than 1980 3M "knew or ought to have known, that there were potential environmental and human health risks associated with the use of 3M PFAS products". They further allege, from that same date, 3M knew or ought to have known that PFAS accumulates in animals and humans, is highly mobile in soil, persists in the environment for extended periods, persists in the human body and that gives "rise to long-term health risks". The documents also include allegations from the plaintiffs that 3M "have concealed and continue to conceal that 3M PFAS products, including Light Water AFFF, pose a material risk to the environment and/or human health". The plaintiffs allege 3M has been "recklessly indifferent to the truth of the safety representations" it has made. In their case, the plaintiffs are asking the court to order 3M to remediate PFAS contaminated sites owned by the organisations bringing the claim or pay compensation for plaintiffs to do this work. The plaintiffs are also seeking damages to be paid "for misleading and deceptive conduct" by 3M. The ABC sent a list of questions to 3M. In a statement it said it would defend itself against the claims. "3M announced in 2000 a voluntary global phase-out of the manufacturing of two PFAS compounds, PFOS and PFOA," it said. "In 2022, the company announced it would discontinue the manufacture of all PFAS by the end of 2025 — a goal we accomplished." The company also said it had "never manufactured PFAS in Australia and ceased sales of the products at issue in Australia around two decades ago." Legal expert says PFAS claims exploding abroad, with Australian cases likely to grow Commercial litigation specialist McKenzie Moore is a deputy managing partner in Sydney with law firm Piper Alderman and has been watching PFAS litigation grow globally. She said litigation really began in the US after a major civil claim was brought against manufacturer DuPont but it took another decade for litigation to take off in Australia. "We had our first claim in relation to PFAS … that focused on Australian Defence Force bases so the class action was actually launched against the Commonwealth," she said. In the last two to three years, Ms Moore said, there had been the start of a "second wave of litigation" which she said was "really aimed at holding the manufacturers accountable". Ms Moore said these cases are just emerging in Australia but had "exploded" abroad. "We're seeing over 7,000 cases in the United States in relation to personal injury claims against DuPont and 3M," she said. "We've seen some really interesting movement in Europe, including in Sweden, which has found that residents who have higher levels of PFAS in their blood will have sustained an injury, a personal injury." Ms Moore said Australia hadn't seen a finding like that, but she predicted personal injury claims would make up the next wave of PFAS related litigation in Australia. Globally, the health impacts of PFAS are still being studied. The Australian Centre for Disease Control advises the public that there is "limited evidence of human disease or other clinically significant harm resulting from PFAS exposure". It advises that some studies have found associations between exposure to some types of PFAS chemicals and health issues such as reduced kidney function, lower birth weight in babies and an increased risk of some cancers. It explains that an association to health outcome does not confirm a direct cause. In the United States the Environment Protection Authority advises that scientific studies have shown exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects or delays on children and low birth weights among other issues. It states that its researchers are still working to understand how harmful PFAS are to people and the environment. Ms Moore said she expected groups with the highest levels of exposure like firefighters and some industrial workers to bring the first personal injury claims in Australia. She said those lawsuits will likely involve claims for much larger amounts of money than the cases Australia has seen so far which have been based on clean-up costs and environmental damage.