Key Takeaways
- New Jersey has secured a landmark settlement, valued at approximately $2.5 billion, against DuPont and 3M arising from alleged PFAS contamination at four sites across the state.
- The settlement may be a potential blueprint for future PFAS enforcement actions and natural resource damages litigation by states nationwide.
- At least 36 states and governmental entities have already filed PFAS-related claims against major manufacturers.
- Companies with historical or ongoing PFAS exposure should evaluate potential liabilities now, including environmental compliance obligations, remediation risks, insurance coverage, contractual indemnities and transaction-related diligence.
Historic Settlement Signals Growing PFAS Risk
On August 7, 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb approved New Jersey’s settlement of PFAS-related claims against DuPont, 3M and affiliated entities arising from contamination associated with four former DuPont facilities located throughout the state. The settlements include up to $1.325 billion in natural resource damages, abatement damages, and related payments over 25 years, together with approximately $1.2 billion in remediation commitments, for an aggregate value of approximately $2.5 billion.
New Jersey’s PFAS litigation involved alleged contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment and resistance to degradation. PFAS have been used in numerous industrial and consumer applications, including firefighting foams, non-stick coatings, water-resistant products and various manufacturing processes.
New Jersey initially filed suit in 2019. Following years of discovery and motion practice, the court scheduled a series of focused liability and damages trials. 3M reportedly settled at the outset of the first trial, while DuPont resolved its claims after multiple trial phases had already occurred.
More Important than the Dollar Amount: A Replicable Litigation Strategy
While the size of the recovery has drawn significant attention, the broader significance of the case may lie in the litigation strategy employed by New Jersey. As described in the litigation, the state identified contamination, pursued claims against manufacturers and suppliers, developed extensive liability and damages evidence through years of litigation, and used the resulting trial pressure to achieve a substantial settlement. Counsel involved in the matter have publicly suggested this approach may serve as a model for future PFAS litigation and environmental enforcement efforts.
The settlement arrives during a period of rapidly expanding PFAS regulation and enforcement. Federal regulators have increased their focus on PFAS reporting, drinking water standards, remediation obligations and disclosure requirements, while states continue to adopt their own regulatory frameworks and pursue independent enforcement initiatives.
As a result, businesses should expect state attorneys general and environmental agencies to continue developing novel legal theories designed to recover investigation costs, remediation expenses, natural resource damages and other alleged losses associated with PFAS contamination.
Which Businesses Face the Greatest Potential Exposure?
Although litigation to date has focused heavily on PFAS manufacturers, the universe of potentially affected businesses is substantially broader.
Potential targets for future claims may include:
- Industrial users of PFAS-containing products;
- Facilities that historically stored, used or disposed of PFAS-containing materials;
- Airports and firefighting training facilities where aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) was used;
- Landfills and waste management facilities;
- Water utilities (e.g. potable water and wastewater facilities)
- Property owners with known PFAS impacts;
- Entities involved in mergers, acquisitions or redevelopment of historically industrial properties; and
- Businesses facing contractual allocation disputes arising from legacy environmental liabilities.
Practical Steps Companies Should Consider Now
Although the New Jersey settlement involved major chemical manufacturers and related entities, its size and structure underscore why other businesses with PFAS-related operations, properties or transactions should evaluate how PFAS risk may affect remediation obligations, diligence, insurance and contractual risk allocation.
From a compliance and diligence perspective, PFAS issues increasingly intersect with existing remediation projects, environmental permits, corrective action obligations and property or corporate transactions. Well-positioned members of the regulated community are likely to view PFAS as a recurring diligence and risk-allocation issue, particularly for industrial facilities, redevelopment sites and assets with a long operating history. In that environment, businesses may benefit from a privileged, counsel-directed assessment of existing information before engaging with consultants, lenders, buyers, sellers, insurers or regulators.
PFAS developments also underscore the importance of reviewing older insurance policies, indemnity provisions, purchase agreements, leases and other risk-allocation documents before a dispute arises. Those materials may not answer every question, and their availability or usefulness will depend on the facts, the policy language, the governing law and the parties involved. Still, early review can give businesses a clearer sense of whether they have potential coverage, contractual claims, notice obligations or leverage in future negotiations.
Where PFAS concerns are known or suspected, companies may benefit from a coordinated approach that brings together environmental, legal, technical and risk-management perspectives. Proactive businesses and utilities will be able to make informed business decision while preserving privilege where available, managing communications and avoiding unnecessary creation of uncontextualized information.
Looking Ahead
Looking ahead, the New Jersey settlement confirms a broader trend: PFAS enforcement is no longer developing in isolation from litigation, regulatory updates, and transactional risk. The practical significance of the settlement goes beyond the dollar amount in that it signals concerted, ongoing enforcement efforts aimed at recovering PFAS remediation costs and natural resource damages.
At the same time, the regulatory picture remains uneven and continues to evolve across federal and state programs. Recent commentary on PFAS regulation has emphasized that certain federal obligations remain focused on PFOA and PFOS, while other programs may move at a different pace and leave uncertainty in the interim. For businesses, that means PFAS risk should be evaluated with attention to the specific compounds, facilities, operations, jurisdictions and transactions at issue rather than through a one-size-fits-all lens.
EPA’s recent federal actions add important nuance, but do not necessarily change the broader direction of PFAS risk management. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA announced it intends to retain maximum contaminant level standards for PFOA and PFOS enacted in 2024, while proposing regulatory flexibility that would give eligible public water systems additional time — potentially until 2031 — to comply. EPA also announced efforts to rescind the drinking water regulations and reconsider the regulatory determinations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA/GenX, and the Hazard Index mixture of those PFAS plus PFBS. In parallel, EPA has continued to recalibrate PFAS policy under other federal programs, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), with particular continued emphasis on PFOA and PFOS. That emphasis was reinforced this week in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, where the D.C. Circuit rejected industry challenges to EPA’s 2024 CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, holding that EPA reasonably acted on the scientific record.
Taken together, these moves may slow or narrow certain federal obligations in the near term, but they do not eliminate the continuing pressure created by state regulation, federal CERCLA liability for PFOA and PFOS, emerging technical standards, and plaintiff- and state-led litigation. The more durable trend is likely to point toward closer scrutiny of PFAS-impacted sites, more aggressive remedial expectations and additional claims seeking to allocate the cost of investigation, cleanup, treatment and natural resource damages.
The entities best positioned to manage that uncertainty will generally be those that understand where PFAS may appear in their operations or history, maintain credible technical information, and address allocation of risk before a government action, private claim or transaction deadline forces the issue. This type of assessment is necessarily fact-specific, but the direction of travel is clear: PFAS will remain a significant environmental, litigation, and business-risk issue for the foreseeable future.
Harris Beach Murtha’s Environmental Practice Group attorneys continue to monitor PFAS-related regulatory developments, enforcement activity and litigation trends at both the federal and state levels. Businesses with questions regarding PFAS compliance, remediation obligations, environmental due diligence or litigation exposure should consult attorney Aaron B. Goldman at (585) 419-8815 and agoldman@harrisbeachmurtha.com; attorney Gene J. Kelly at (518) 701-2740 and gkelly@harrisbeachmurtha.com; attorney Alfred E. Smith Jr. at (203) 772-7722 and asmith@harrisbeachmurtha.com; or the Harris Beach Murtha attorney with whom you most frequently work.
This alert is not a substitute for advice of counsel on specific legal issues.
Harris Beach Murtha’s lawyers and consultants practice from offices throughout Connecticut in Bantam, Hartford, New Haven and Stamford; New York State in Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Ithaca, New York City, Niagara Falls, Rochester, Saratoga Springs, Syracuse, Long Island and White Plains; as well as in Boston, Massachusetts, and Newark, New Jersey.