Recently, I attended the 2026 Perrin Conferences PFAS Litigation and Regulatory Developments Conference, where industry leaders and practitioners explored the rapidly evolving landscape surrounding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). The conference highlighted cutting-edge developments in both regulation and litigation, including updates on the ongoing multidistrict litigation involving PFAS-containing firefighter foam, emerging trends in agricultural exposure and greenwashing claims, and the growing role of AI in managing complex PFAS litigation. Below are three key takeaways:

The Widespread Industrial Uses of PFAS:

PFAS are used across a remarkably broad range of consumer and industrial applications, largely due to their resistance to water, grease, and stains. These properties have made PFAS a staple in products and processes ranging from cookware and firefighting foams to water-repellent textiles and leather, metal plating and etching, wire manufacturing, industrial surfactants, photolithography, cleaning agents, paints and polishes, as well as medical and personal care products. PFAS may also enter the food supply through pesticide packaging and certain additives. This pervasive use has, in turn, fueled a rapidly expanding wave of PFAS-related litigation.

Establishing the Effects of PFAS Exposure Remains Highly Challenging:

When analyzing the rise of PFAS liability and litigation, many draw striking parallels to asbestos. For decades, asbestos was considered a "miracle mineral," highly effective for insulation and fireproofing. However, in the 1970s, asbestos-containing materials began to be linked to an increased risk of diseases, including lung cancer and mesothelioma. By the 1990s, asbestos litigation was in full swing, creating significant liability for companies that had exposed individuals to asbestos. Similarly, PFAS have long been valued for their effectiveness in waterproofing and stain resistance, but over the past two decades have come under increasing regulation as the risks associated with PFAS exposure have become better understood.

There is, however, a key difference that makes pinpointing liability for PFAS exposure significantly more difficult than in asbestos cases: the lack of a signature disease. In the past year, only about 10% of the more than 2,500 publications related to PFAS have been epidemiological, with studies linking PFAS exposure to kidney and testicular cancer, as well as growing evidence of prenatal and early-life impacts, including neurodevelopmental and behavioral issues, preeclampsia, pubertal and endocrine disruption, and adverse birth outcomes. 

Even so, the epidemiological data remains widespread and inconsistent, without demonstrating strong, uniform patterns tying PFAS to specific human diseases. This stands in contrast to asbestos and mesothelioma, where there were few alternative causes of the disease. By comparison, diseases potentially associated with PFAS often have multiple well-established and common causes. Additionally, the widespread presence of PFAS across industries and consumer products makes it difficult to determine whether a PFAS-related condition stems from occupational exposure or more general, non-occupational exposure.

Litigation Surrounding PFAS Greenwashing is Increasing Rapidly:

PFAS is a variable term that can include or exclude a wide range of similar chemical compounds, leading different governments to define and regulate PFAS inconsistently. One issue that has quickly emerged in PFAS litigation is "greenwashing," a marketing tactic in which a company, service, or product is portrayed as environmentally friendly, or more environmentally friendly than it actually is, in order to drive sales or enhance its reputation.

With the rise in regulation and public awareness surrounding PFAS, three primary types of greenwashing claims have emerged. 

• Cases in which companies expressly market products as "PFAS-free"
• Claims that no PFAS are intentionally added, despite the possibility that PFAS may still be present through the supply chain
• So-called implied "clean" representations, where products are marketed using phrases such as "no chemicals of concern" or rely on "natural" or "organic" language to suggest the absence of PFAS

In the regulatory and litigation landscape, governments are expanding restrictions aimed at removing PFAS from certain categories of products, including personal care items. However, the global nature of modern supply chains makes this increasingly difficult, as disparities in PFAS regulation shift burdens to developing regions and highlight the need for greater international coordination. These supply chain complexities, in turn, are driving increased liability and insurance coverage disputes, particularly where PFAS contamination may be unknown or lost in the supply chain. While testing can help support claims that products are PFAS-free, the growing wave of false advertising and consumer fraud litigation in this space underscores the importance and necessity of such verification.

PFAS litigation and regulation is a rapidly evolving and expanding area of law. It is more important than ever to stay informed and continue educating oneself, as the risks of liability are growing exponentially. If you have any questions or would like assistance reviewing your policies in relation to PFAS, please reach out to a member of the Ropers Majeski team.