Regulatory uncertainty has long been a defining trait of litigation around PFAS, colloquially known as “forever chemicals.” The landscape is shifting once again, after the Trump administration withdrew an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that set strict limits on PFAS discharges.
According to Jamie Sanders (pictured), Clyde & Co partner, the rollback seems part of a broader effort to undo Biden-era policies rather than a targeted move against PFAS regulation. Initially implemented under the Biden administration, the rule established stringent PFAS discharge limits for drinking water.
“The rule was still years away from full implementation due to compliance deadlines, and it's unclear whether the Trump administration will replace it with a looser standard or reinstate the old rule under public pressure,” Sanders said. “Given this uncertainty, the withdrawal is unlikely to significantly impact litigation in the near term.”
For industries directly impacted by PFAS regulations, this development could mean a reprieve. Big chemical manufacturers stand to benefit, as do industries like carpet manufacturing, particularly in areas where wastewater discharges have been a focal point of legal battles.
The withdrawal does not impact consumer product lawsuits, which have become another front in the PFAS legal war. Companies accused of misleading labeling, such as advertising products as “organic” when they contain PFAS, are still facing legal scrutiny. The regulatory rollback doesn’t offer them any protection; it’s also unlikely to have much of an effect on ongoing cases, said Sanders.
For corporations navigating this uncertain environment, the regulatory pullback doesn’t mean an immediate shift in strategy. Many companies are expected to continue operating cautiously, wary of a potential regulatory reversal in the future.
“I’d be surprised if this withdrawal significantly impacted corporate strategy,” he said. “Companies typically err on the side of caution. Additionally, a future administration could reinstate the old standard, especially if the party in office changes in 2028. Given this unpredictability, I don’t expect a meaningful shift in corporate strategy for now.”
Despite the uncertainty, the biggest legal risk around PFAS remains civil litigation, not regulatory fines. Companies, insurers, and municipalities are watching case developments closely, trying to determine what comes next.
According to Sanders, most of the legal battles surrounding PFAS are tied up in the sprawling multi-district litigation in South Carolina, where cases have been consolidated to streamline proceedings. These broadly consist of two types of claims, he said.
The first type involves municipalities seeking to recover cleanup costs for contaminated drinking water. The second consists of bodily injury claims, in which individuals allege that PFAS exposure caused their health conditions.
Litigators and industry observers are particularly interested in the bodily injury cases, as they hinge on whether plaintiffs can establish a direct causal link between PFAS exposure and specific illnesses.
“Over the next year or so, what I’m looking at is whether we have our first bellwether trial for a bodily injury claim,” Sanders said. “The scientific causation, and whether the plaintiffs can establish that their disease or cancer was caused by PFAS exposure, is something that a lot of people are watching.”
According to online news service InsideEPA.com, the first trial date is set for October 6, 2025, focusing on cases related to kidney and testicular cancer, stemming from PFAS contamination from firefighting foam.
Sanders said if juries reject the link between PFAS exposure and illness, companies and insurers could avoid massive payouts. If plaintiffs start winning big verdicts, however, the floodgates could open.
“If those cases produce large verdicts, if juries are consistently coming back and finding that causation does exist, I think that is going to pose a very large financial threat, both to the companies and to their insurers,” Sanders said.
So far, chemical firms have reached settlements totaling over $11 billion with US water systems for their alleged role in contaminating water supplies, Reuters reported.
Do you have something to say about PFAS litigation risks? Please share a comment below.
