A Better Newspaper

## Overview A new class action lawsuit filed in 2026 alleges that multiple companies, including 3M Company and DuPont De Nemours, manufactured firefighter gear containing toxic PFAS chemicals, which reportedly contaminated fire stations and exposed firefighters to serious health risks (Top Class Actions, April 10). A California county has also filed suit. The litigation represents an expansion of PFAS liability beyond aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) into structural firefighter protective equipment (PPE). ## Key Allegations - Firefighter turnout gear manufactured by multiple companies contained PFAS (Top Class Actions, April 10) - The gear allegedly contaminated fire stations through routine use, creating chronic exposure environments (Top Class Actions, April 10) - Firefighters were allegedly exposed to serious health risks as a result (Top Class Actions, April 10) - Named defendants reportedly include **3M Company** and **DuPont De Nemours** (Top Class Actions, April 10) ## Distinction from Prior PFAS Litigation Prior PFAS firefighting litigation has primarily focused on **AFFF** (aqueous film-forming foam) used in fire suppression. This new wave targets the **structural gear itself** — turnout coats, pants, and helmets — expanding the universe of potentially liable manufacturers and the scope of exposed plaintiffs. ## California County Involvement A California county has separately filed suit (Top Class Actions, April 10), adding a government-plaintiff dimension that could yield larger damages claims and create precedent for municipal recovery of remediation costs. ## Defendant Exposure - **3M** has been a central defendant in AFFF PFAS litigation and reached a significant settlement. Gear-based claims represent a potentially new liability category. - **DuPont** (and its spinoffs) face ongoing PFAS litigation across multiple product lines. - Gear manufacturers (Honeywell, Globe Manufacturing, Lion Apparel, and others) may face claims depending on case development. ## Legal Framework - Claims likely include products liability (design and failure to warn), negligence, and potentially medical monitoring. - Class certification will be a critical battleground given the diversity of exposure levels and health outcomes. - Government plaintiff claims may include public nuisance and cost recovery theories. ## Ongoing Monitoring - Class certification rulings - Additional defendant disclosures - Settlement activity - Legislative responses (PFAS gear phase-out mandates) ## Sources - Top Class Actions, April 10: "Another Firefighter gear class action alleges PFAS exposure as California county sues"