AFFF Firefighting Foam Claimant Acquisition: MDL 2873 in 2026

The AFFF litigation is a federal multidistrict proceeding, MDL 2873, in the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel. It consolidates claims that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in aqueous film-forming foam made by 3M, DuPont and its spinoffs, Tyco, BASF and others contaminated water supplies and caused cancers and other diseases in firefighters, service members and nearby residents.

Intake teams should care right now for a specific reason. The water provider side of this MDL has produced billions in class settlements, but the personal injury side has produced no trial and no global deal, and the court spent 2026 dismissing cases that could not produce a complete fact sheet and medical records. The claimants who survive that process are the ones with documents.

Where the litigation stands (September 2026)

MDL 2873 has been pending since 2018 under Master Docket No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, and litigation trackers describe it as one of the largest product liability MDLs in American history. It has a water contamination track, largely resolved through class settlements, and a personal injury track, which is not.

3M's public water system settlement, valued at roughly $10.3 billion, received final approval on March 29, 2024. The DuPont, Chemours and Corteva settlement of $1.185 billion was approved on February 8, 2024, and Tyco ($750 million) and BASF ($316.5 million) followed. The official settlement site is explicit that these cover PFAS contamination in public water systems' drinking water and do not include personal injury claims.

The personal injury track is where the intake question lives. On June 2, 2025, Judge Gergel ruled that the first bellwether trial would be limited to kidney cancer with up to three plaintiffs, set for October 20, 2025, following Science Day presentations on June 6 and June 20, 2025 that covered kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, thyroid cancer and liver cancer. That trial never happened. On August 15, 2025, the court entered Case Management Order 35, vacating the October trial and opening a filing facilitation window through September 5, 2025. Filers after that date face heightened scrutiny and a 90-day deadline for complete medical records. Discovery continued in a pool of 28 bellwether cases across kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis, and on March 17, 2026 counsel in the thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis groups were directed to begin expert work.

The 2026 story is compliance. On February 25, 2026, Judge Gergel entered CMO 37, which lets defendants serve non-compliance lists on plaintiffs who have not submitted an amended fact sheet, a profile form through the MDL Portal, and for cases filed after March 1, 2025, medical records. Plaintiffs get a 14-day cure period. Cases filed before March 1, 2025 that fail to cure face dismissal with prejudice; later cases face dismissal without prejudice. Defendants filed mass dismissal motions in June 2026, and on June 15, 2026 the court appointed retired Judge Margaret B. Seymour as Special Master to review the cure disputes and report within 90 days. As of September 2026 there is no personal injury bellwether trial on the calendar and no global settlement.

What a qualified claimant looks like

The MDL has prioritized six conditions, and most firms have written their intake criteria around that list. Firms differ on the details: some require a minimum number of documented foam exposures, others a minimum period of residence near a base, airport or water system with confirmed contamination. Several large plaintiff firms stopped taking new AFFF cases in 2025 and 2026, so the firms still signing tend to be selective.

The criteria firms are actually signing, in general terms:

• Diagnosis of kidney cancer, testicular cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, thyroid disease (hypothyroidism) or ulcerative colitis, confirmed by medical records rather than self-report
• Exposure as a firefighter (municipal, military or airport), a service member or worker who handled or trained with AFFF, or a resident who drank water from a system with documented PFAS contamination, usually near a base or airport
• Employment, service, training or residency records that place the claimant at the exposure site for a period that preceded diagnosis
• Medical records sufficient to satisfy CMO 37 within its cure window, including the diagnosing provider and dates of treatment
• No prior AFFF claim filed by or for the claimant, and no participation in a settlement that released the claim

Venue is simple: cases are filed directly in the District of South Carolina under the MDL's direct filing procedures, wherever the claimant lives. Statute of limitations is not. Home-state limitations law and discovery rules vary, so the date of diagnosis and the date the claimant connected it to PFAS both matter. An older diagnosis is a flag for counsel review, not an automatic disqualifier.

Where intake goes wrong on this tort

The first failure is exposure by assertion. Almost everyone who calls about a PFAS ad believes they were exposed, but belief does not survive a fact sheet. A volunteer who trained with foam twice in 1994 and a career airport firefighter who ran foam drills for 20 years both answer yes to the same screening question. The screening has to ask where, how often, for how long, and what records exist, and then it has to go get them.

The second failure is diagnosis drift. AFFF advertising pulls in prostate cancer, bladder cancer, breast cancer, Crohn's disease and general thyroid complaints, none of which are on the prioritized list. An intake script that accepts "thyroid problems" or "stomach issues" as a qualifying answer will fill a docket with cases that get cut at fact sheet review.

The third failure is water track confusion. Residents in contaminated water communities frequently believe they are part of the 3M or DuPont settlement. They are not. Those settlements paid public water systems, not people, and the intake team has to explain that without promising anything.

Then there are the structural problems. Coached claims show up as callers who recite the six conditions and the exposure categories in the order the ad listed them. Duplicate claimants are common because AFFF has been advertised for years and the same firefighter or veteran has responded to several campaigns, sometimes signing with more than one firm. Geography cuts both ways: a claimant near a documented contamination site is easier to prove up, and a claimant with a home-state limitations problem needs review before signature. Finally, document gaps kill cases, which is why CMO 37 exists.

What acquisition looks like

This claimant population is unusually reachable through occupation. Firefighters and veterans belong to unions, associations and base-specific communities, and they talk to each other. Creative that names the job, the base or the foam outperforms generic "toxic chemical" messaging. Search intent is strong because affected people already know the term AFFF, and many know their own base or department is on a contamination list.

The hard part is not reach, it is precision. Broad PFAS messaging pulls in cookware, cosmetics and general water worry, none of which fits this MDL. Creative that leads with the specific diagnoses and exposure settings costs more per click and far less per qualified case. Water community campaigns work best when tied to a named installation with public contamination findings, because that gives the screener something concrete to verify.

Cost is driven by three things. The audience has been advertised to heavily for years, so response to generic creative has softened. The condition list is narrow, so many responders fail on diagnosis. And the real cost is the work to turn a responder into a claimant with records in hand. Cheap AFFF leads are cheap because that work was never done.

How Slingshot screens for this tort

Direct opt-in comes first. Every AFFF prospect we deliver responded to our own advertising, gave documented TCPA consent, and asked to be contacted about a firefighting foam claim. We do not buy aged lists or resell a claimant to a second firm.

Identity verification and document authentication are where this tort is won or lost. We confirm who the claimant is, then we confirm the two facts that matter: the diagnosis and the exposure. That means a diagnosing provider and date, not a symptom description, and an employment, service or residency record that places the claimant at a specific site for a specific period. We flag prior claims and prior firm relationships before signature, not after.

Post-signature engagement is the piece most vendors skip and the piece CMO 37 made expensive to skip. A signed retainer with no records is a dismissal waiting for a cure letter. We keep the claimant engaged through document collection so the firm receives a file that can complete a fact sheet, not a name and a phone number.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a settlement for AFFF personal injury claims in 2026?

No. As of September 2026, the finalized settlements in MDL 2873 are class settlements with public water systems: the 3M and DuPont, Chemours and Corteva deals approved in 2024 and the Tyco and BASF deals that followed. The official settlement site states that personal injury claims are not included. The personal injury track has no global resolution, and the bellwether trial set for October 2025 was vacated without a new date.

Which diagnoses qualify for the AFFF lawsuit?

The court's bellwether process and the plaintiff firms still signing cases focus on six conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, thyroid disease (hypothyroidism) and ulcerative colitis. Firms set their own criteria within that list, and some accept fewer conditions than the court has prioritized. Prostate, bladder and breast cancer are not part of the current bellwether program.

Can someone still file an AFFF claim after the September 2025 filing window closed?

Yes, but under tighter rules. CMO 35 closed the filing facilitation window on September 5, 2025, and later filed cases face heightened scrutiny and a 90-day deadline for complete medical records. CMO 37, entered February 25, 2026, adds a 14-day cure period and dismissal for cases that cannot produce fact sheets, profile forms and medical records. A claimant who cannot document diagnosis and exposure before signing will struggle with those deadlines.

Sources

This article is published by Slingshot Legal Support, a legal marketing and claimant acquisition company. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Litigation status is described as publicly reported as of the publication date and changes frequently.