Key Points

• PFAS regulation is accelerating. New EPA standards and a looming TSCA reporting deadline are reshaping compliance obligations while a patchwork of state laws is imposing product-level reporting, labeling and sales bans.
• Litigation exposure is widening fast. The attorneys general of 30 states have sued PFAS manufacturers while consumer and business-customer claims are rising. Multidistrict litigation for aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-related PFAS cases comprises thousands of cases from around the United States and has resulted in settlements to date exceeding $11 billion.
• Many companies are at risk. Product and supply chain liability, real estate and M&A due diligence gaps, and occupational safety exposure put even businesses with no direct PFAS manufacturing history at risk.

A growing web of federal and state regulations is transforming per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — better known as PFAS — from an environmental concern into a front-burner legal risk for companies across virtually every industry.

A wide range of companies may find themselves exposed to litigation, enforcement actions, cleanup liability and new reporting mandates.

The risks touch products and supply chains, employee health and safety, corporate and real estate acquisitions, and intellectual property. This alert highlights the key legal risks so they can be identified, evaluated and mitigated.

What Are PFAS?

PFAS are synthetic compounds built around a uniquely strong carbon-fluorine bond. Their oil-, water- and stain-repellent properties, chemical and temperature resistance, and surfactant qualities make them useful across a vast range of products — some considered essential to health, safety or modern life. Different state, federal and international agencies define PFAS differently, but all define them broadly.

Beyond the products that have drawn the most attention — nonstick cookware, water-resistant fabrics and AFFF — PFAS may be found in cosmetics, solar panels, medical fabrics, food-contact packaging, cleaning products and more.

How Are They Regulated?

PFAS are increasingly regulated at the state and federal level. Key developments include:

CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation. EPA designated PFOA and PFOS (including their salts and structural isomers) as hazardous substances under CERCLA, effective July 8, 2024. The designation enables the EPA to compel investigation and cleanup of releases, requires entities to report releases at or above the reportable quantity, and exposes potentially responsible parties to cost-recovery and contribution actions by federal, state and private plaintiffs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has challenged the designation, and that litigation remains pending.

Drinking Water and Groundwater Standards. The EPA has set maximum contaminant levels in drinking water (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion. These standards increasingly drive environmental investigation and cleanup requirements. Many states have imposed similarly stringent standards and are now developing surface water and soil standards. Notably, environmental risk may exist even for companies that never manufactured or directly used PFAS. Contamination can stem from AFFF use, onsite landfills, former disposal areas, septic systems and biosolids.

Reporting Requirements. Various federal and state reporting obligations apply to the use of PFAS or PFAS-containing products. One consequence: companies may be identified publicly for the first time as having operations or products linked to PFAS.

Under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7), the EPA is requiring companies that have manufactured or imported PFAS to report several broad categories of information for each PFAS manufactured or imported for a commercial purpose from Jan. 1, 2011, through Dec. 31, 2022. The PFAS definition under the rule is very broad, and for many companies this may be their first encounter with significant TSCA requirements. The reporting deadline has been moved to the earlier of Jan. 15, 2027, or 60 days after finalization of still-pending amendments to the current rule. Those pending amendments, when finalized, could limit the scope of reportable information for some companies.

Companies also face a growing patchwork of state laws regulating PFAS in products. As of early 2026, states including Minnesota, Connecticut, California, Colorado, Maine, Vermont, Washington and New Jersey have enacted laws addressing intentionally added PFAS in products. The laws impose reporting, labeling or outright sales bans. Exemptions, including for “currently unavoidable uses,” are limited. Companies should ensure their supply agreements require upstream suppliers to cooperate and provide information about PFAS content, including certifications of compliance where appropriate.

What Are the Risks?

1. Product and Supply Chain Risks

Companies face potential obligations to report PFAS in their products in certain states and/or may be subject to product labeling requirements or bans. These processes may call for the disclosure of sensitive trade secret information that may be subject to protections. Two states illustrate the scope and complexity of these regimes:

Minnesota's PFAS pollution prevention law, Amara's Law (Minn. Stat. § 116.943), has prohibited the sale of products with intentionally added PFAS in 11 product categories since Jan. 1, 2025. A broader ban covering all products takes effect Jan. 1, 2032, unless a use is designated "currently unavoidable.” The law also requires manufacturers to report product descriptions, PFAS chemicals present, concentrations and the function PFAS serve. The initial reporting deadline is Sept. 15, 2026, with a possible 90-day extension. The information reported will be publicly available on the state’s PRISM website.

Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-903c) is taking a phased approach. Disclosure requirements for outdoor apparel and firefighting turnout gear took effect Jan. 1, 2026. Beginning July 1, 2026, manufacturers may not sell covered products containing intentionally added PFAS without first providing the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) with information similar to that required by Minnesota and labeling the products. An outright ban on covered products with intentionally added PFAS takes effect Jan. 1, 2028, with very limited exceptions.

2. Litigation Risks

PFAS litigation has expanded significantly and now reaches a widening circle of defendants. As of the first quarter of 2026, more than 23,000 lawsuits had been filed in federal courts. Key categories of risk include:

• Claims by Consumers and State AGs. Consumer plaintiffs typically allege false representations — such as marketing products as "all natural” or "clean” — or failure to disclose PFAS content. State attorneys general are also active; Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for example, issued a civil investigative demand to a maker of athletic clothing to examine whether its apparel contains PFAS that health-conscious consumers would not expect.
• Claims by Business Customers. Purchasers of raw materials, components or finished goods may assert claims against suppliers whose products contain undisclosed PFAS, particularly where the presence of PFAS creates regulatory obligations or downstream litigation exposure.
• Claims Arising from Environmental Contamination. Plaintiffs — including individuals, water companies and state and local governments — have brought negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability and statutory claims against PFAS manufacturers and companies that use PFAS in their operations.
• Personal Injury and Property Damage Claims. The AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the District of South Carolina comprises thousands of cases, including claims by public water providers, individuals seeking personal injury and medical monitoring relief, and property owners. In 2023, two companies announced settlements valued at over $11 billion.

3. Regulatory Enforcement

California’s Proposition 65 requires a clear and reasonable warning label if consumer exposure to listed PFAS (currently PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS) exceeds a safe-harbor level. Violations can lead to penalties of up to $2,500 per day. The law’s private-enforcement provision has spawned a cottage industry of plaintiff attorneys.

4. Occupational Safety Risks

Companies should be aware of potential workplace-exposure liability under the OSHA General Duty Clause, industrial hygiene requirements and the current lack of complete PFAS information on Safety Data Sheets.

5. Real Estate and M&A Risks

PFAS considerations are increasingly important in real estate transactions and M&A. Due diligence should now account for PFAS usage, storage and potential contamination associated with operations, properties and products. With PFOA and PFOS designated as CERCLA hazardous substances, All Appropriate Inquiries investigations should evaluate conditions indicative of PFOA and PFOS releases, including historic firefighting activities involving AFFF.

6. IP Risks

Companies should consider IP implications of PFAS, including the potential use of patents as a forensic tool in litigation, R&D concerning PFAS alternatives, and environmental risks the alternatives themselves may present.

Identify and Mitigate the Risks

The evolving scope of PFAS regulation demands proactive attention. Regulatorily required reports on current or historic PFAS use will make extensive new data available to the public and plaintiffs’ lawyers. Companies should work with counsel through the process of identifying current and former PFAS uses in their products and operations, evaluating accompanying requirements, making any disclosures, for example, to protect sensitive commercial information, and to get ahead of compliance, litigation and reputational risks.

For information, please contact Karen Davis at kdavis@foxrothschild.com, Adam Cutler at acutler@foxrothschild.com or another member of the firm's Environmental Practice Group.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this alert should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this alert without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily this law firm or its clients. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.