AFFF Lawsuits Advance: Bellwether Trials on the Horizon as Settlement Talks Intensify

August 20, 2025

8/26/2025 Update! The AFFF MDL filing deadline is extended to September 10th, 2025. This deadline creates a "Filing Facilitation Window" for unfiled cases and was established by the court to encourage the filing of lawsuits related to the AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) litigation. While cases can still be filed after this date, they will be subject to stricter procedural requirements and compressed deadlines.

As of August 2025, the AFFF MDL (MDL-2873) has grown to include over 11,000 individual claims

Significant developments continue to unfold in the nationwide legal battle over aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), with thousands of lawsuits consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the District of South Carolina. Recent months have seen a surge in case filings, crucial court-ordered deadlines, and mounting pressure on defendants to reach a global settlement ahead of the first bellwether trials scheduled for late 2025.


As of August 2025, the AFFF MDL (MDL-2873) has grown to include over 11,000 individual claims. These lawsuits, filed by firefighters, military personnel, and others exposed to the firefighting foam, allege that manufacturers knew for decades that AFFF contains harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) linked to various cancers and other serious health issues, yet failed to warn the public.


A major focus of the litigation is the scheduling of bellwether trials, which are test cases intended to gauge jury reactions and inform potential settlement negotiations. The first of these trials is slated to begin on October 20, 2025, and will focus on claims of kidney cancer. The court has also established a process for selecting additional bellwether cases involving other diseases, such as testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis.


In a significant move to streamline the proceedings, the court has categorized the alleged injuries into tiers, with those having the strongest scientific link to PFAS exposure being prioritized. These "Tier 1" injuries currently include:


  • Kidney Cancer
  • Testicular Cancer
  • Liver Cancer
  • Ulcerative Colitis
  • Thyroid Cancer
  • Thyroid Disease


The outcomes of these initial trials could pave the way for a comprehensive settlement agreement. However, there is considerable speculation within the legal community that a global settlement could be reached before the first bellwether trial concludes, driven by the increasing number of lawsuits and mounting scientific evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims.


Recent scientific studies continue to play a crucial role in the litigation, with ongoing research further solidifying the link between PFAS exposure and various health conditions. In June 2025, the court held a "Science Day" to allow experts from both sides to present their findings on the causal relationship between AFFF and specific cancers, a testament to the scientific complexity of these cases.


While no global settlement has been announced, several major defendants have already entered into agreements to resolve certain related claims. These include multi-billion dollar settlements with public water systems to address PFAS contamination, which, while separate from the personal injury claims, indicate a willingness by some companies to resolve AFFF-related liabilities.


As the litigation progresses, deadlines for submitting evidence and expert reports are being strictly enforced. Plaintiffs' attorneys are urging individuals who believe they have been harmed by AFFF exposure to come forward promptly, as the window for filing a claim may close as a global settlement becomes more likely. The coming months are expected to be critical in determining the trajectory of this widespread and impactful litigation.


Learn more at: https://www.jasonjoylaw.com/afff-and-pfas

Contact Us

By submitting this form you agree to receive text messages.

By Rebecca Rivera December 9, 2025
As reported in the Washington Post December 5th, 2025 by Amudalat Ajasa A prominent scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, has retracted a widely cited 2000 study that previously concluded the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, posed no cancer risk to humans. The retraction was initiated after evidence emerged suggesting the study was heavily influenced by the herbicide's seller, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), in an apparent effort to disguise potential health risks. Specific concerns cited by the journal include the strong possibility that Monsanto employees contributed to the writing without proper acknowledgment, that the authors may have received undisclosed payments from the company , and that the findings were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies. This misconduct, discovered through internal company emails during federal litigation, is significant because the faulty research served as a bedrock for regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate for decades. Summary of Alleged Faulty Study and Monsanto's Influence The Study and Its Conclusion: The retracted paper, published in 2000, was a "bedrock study" that concluded: "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans." The Retraction: The scientific journal retracted the study due to a loss of confidence in its results and conclusions, citing the need to "maintain the integrity of the journal." Evidence of Undisclosed Influence: The co-editor in chief cited evidence suggesting that Monsanto employees "may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co authors." Undisclosed Payments: The retraction also noted that the study's authors may have been paid by Monsanto without disclosing it . Basis of Findings: The journal stated that the study's findings about cancer risk were "solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto." Discovery of Influence: Monsanto's influence over the study was reportedly discovered through internal emails released during federal litigation against the company in 2017. Impact: The study "had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades," and was one of the most-cited papers on glyphosate safety, underpinning federal regulations for the pesticide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even cited it in its 2016 review of glyphosate. Context and Aftermath Bayer's Defense: Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) defended the chemical's safety and argued that Monsanto's involvement was appropriately cited in the acknowledgments, stating that glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide and that the "vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement." Regulatory Stance: The EPA stated the retraction would not affect its current stance —which is that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans"—because the agency does not directly rely on review articles like this one, but uses them to find other relevant individual studies. Litigation: Bayer has spent approximately $10 billion to settle lawsuits arguing the company did not warn customers about the negative health impacts of using Roundup. Read the full article in the Washington Post
By Rebecca Rivera November 14, 2025
In this series premiere episode, Founder & President of SOSCSA, Child Sexual Abuse Survivor & BSA Bankruptcy Claimant, Curtis Garrison interviews attorney Jason J Joy for an update on the BSA bankruptcy and discussing childhood abuse litigation for which Jason is an outspoken and experienced advocate. Jason's firm is actively litigating cases for many clients his law firm represents. This podcast is recommended for clients already represented, and for those who are still contemplating coming forward to establish a claim. Topics covered in this episode: Recent BSA Bankruptcy Trust report Lajun Claimants (Guam) v. Boy Scouts of America and their recent Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court The 1.5% initial payment, possible second payment time / total percentage Future Claims, BSA Councils, BSA Charters (churches, schools, etc) which there are over 100,000 entities possibly getting free of liability Mixed Claims explained We did not vote for this plan, they promised we would be paid in “Paid in Full” Plans to file an Amicus Brief Statute of Limitations 
By Rebecca Rivera November 6, 2025
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, involving tens of thousands of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is among the largest and most contentious mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. In this podcast, Attorney Jason Joy breaks down the latest ruling from the Third Circuit Court, which leaves many survivors of childhood sexual abuse with drastically underfunded compensation.