By: Amanda Beattie, Zoe Jones and Nick Salagaras

At a glance

• In December 2024, a consumer-led PFAS class action was filed against 3M Australia Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Despite significant US litigation, this marks the first class action against 3M in Australia related to PFAS contamination and the first consumer-led PFAS action in the country.
• The claim alleges that 3M sold products containing PFAS without disclosing their risks, including ground and surface water contamination. It also accuses 3M of misleading or deceptive conduct, breaching its duty of care, and causing public nuisance due to PFAS presence in the environment.
• This case differs from previous Australian PFAS claims as it aligns with a growing US trend of consumer-led class actions. It also introduces allegations regarding PFAS-related human health impacts, which have not yet been successfully litigated in Australia due, in part, to a lack of scientific evidence.
• This article examines the history of PFAS class actions in the US and Australia and forecasts the future of PFAS related litigation in Australia.

3M Class Action

The claim has been brought by Qenos Olefins Pty Ltd, a multibillion-dollar company which is the sole manufacturer of polyethylene and polymers in Australia. The allegations made by Qenos relate to product sold by 3M between around 1980 until 2000. Those products included aqueous firefighting foam (AFFF), which has already been the subject of significant class action proceedings in Australia against the Commonwealth government’s Department of Defence.

The claim alleges that 3M:

• engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by selling products containing PFAS without disclosing the risks they posed to its consumers, including the risk of ground and surface water contamination,
• breached their duty of care to protect users of its products from harm, and
• caused public nuisance due to the existence of PFAS in the environment generally.

The claim alleges 3M had knowledge of human health impacts of PFAS including reproductive issues, child development delays, increased risk of cancer and reduced immunity. The claim alleges that PFOS, one of the PFAS chemicals is likely or possibly carcinogenic and poses other human health risks. It is not clear whether damages are sought for those impacts and to date, a specific claim for damages based upon human health impacts has not featured in an Australian class action relating to PFAS contamination.

Qenos alleges that 3M knew, or ought to have known no later than 1980 that the use of PFAS products posed environmental and human health risks. A key issue will be the extent of 3M’s knowledge and particularly when 3M knew about the potential impacts of PFAS contamination.

Another unusual feature of this proceeding is that the lead plaintiff, along with eight of its other entities, had external administrators appointed on 17 April 2024.¹ How this litigation will run effectively with the lead plaintiff in administration remains to be seen, although it does suggest that extra consideration has been given to it before commencing proceedings.

The claim represents a very broad class of plaintiffs, being entities that bought or used 3M products containing PFAS and will have to incur costs to manage or investigate the alleged impacts of contamination. This may also include entities affected by PFAS contamination caused by someone else other than 3M, by migration or by impacted water supplies. The scope of the group member definition is likely to be an issue in the proceedings and could cause delay or complications in the case.

A comparison of US and Australian PFAS class actions

While the Qenos litigation is the first of its kind in Australia, 3M has faced extensive PFAS-related litigation in the US. Alongside other manufacturers like DuPont, 3M is currently named in over 4,000 US lawsuits and has paid $10.3 billion in damages. Significant recent US filings include:

• AFFF Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2873, District of South Carolina): A complex multi-party, multi-district litigation involving around 10,000 cases. Plaintiffs claim AFFF contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports, and industrial sites, causing personal injury, property damage, and economic losses. The trial has been listed for October 2025.
• Nantucket Class Action (Massachusetts District Court, 2024): Residents allege PFAS contamination from sites including Nantucket Airport and Fire Station, seeking damages, medical monitoring, and environmental remediation.

However, US filings are not restricted to groundwater and environmental contamination. Consumer-led actions are also a feature of PFAS litigation in the US. For example:

• in late 2024, two PFAS class actions were filed against The Hershey’s Company in the US:
  • Jonathan Parish (Pennsylvania Federal Court): the plaintiff alleges that Hershey’s wrappers contain high levels of PFAS, and that Hershey’s knowingly sold its products despite PFAS contamination and failed to disclose high/dangerous levels of PFAS in their chocolate wrappers to its consumers. The claim follows the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s ban of the use of PFAS in food packaging in February 2024.
  • Abraham Mohamed (Los Angeles County Superior Court in California): the plaintiff alleges that Hershey’s omitted and/or failed to disclose that its ‘Bubble Yum’ bubble gum has organic fluorine, which increases the risk of consumers’ exposure to PFAS. It is alleged that Hershey’s misled its consumers by marketing this product as “high quality”, “sustainable” and “transparent about [their] ingredients.”
• Samsung & Apple Class Actions: In early 2025, separate class actions were filed against Samsung and Apple in relation to sports watch bands which are alleged to contain excessive PFAS levels.

Conversely, PFAS class actions thus far in Australia have been limited to the historical use of firefighting foams, as older AFFF formulas often contains PFAS. The largest claims to date have been against the Commonwealth government, with 5 actions since 2016 involving 11 Defence bases.

All of the claims against the Commonwealth Government have been commenced in the Federal Court. The first three claims were resolved jointly in early 2020 (in relation to Williamtown, Oakely and Tindal bases) with a settlement of $212.5m approved. A further proceeding was commenced in early 2023 in relation to a further 7 bases, which was settled in early 2023 for $132.7 million.

The basis of each of those claims was not health-related or personal injury. Instead, the plaintiffs made their claims on the bases of negligence and nuisance. The plaintiffs (who were limited to landowners in each of the affected communities) alleged that the historical use of AFFF at these Defence sites had caused them to suffer:

• Diminution of their property values and perceived degradation of land quality,
• Loss of enjoyment of their land (a nuisance-style claim), including such aspects as inability to grow fruit and vegetables for consumption due to PFAS contamination, loss of the ability to consume fish, or loss of groundwater.

The remaining claim was also commenced in 2023, but on behalf of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community in relation to PFAS contamination near Jervis Bay. This claim sought damages for cultural loss, a first for Australia. The plaintiffs claimed that PFAS contamination caused them to lose their ability to catch fish and use the natural waterways consistent with the plaintiffs’ Indigenous heritage, and otherwise jeopardise their spiritual connection to the land and waters of Wreck Bay. Again, this claim was not made on the basis of any personal injury or health-related claim. The claim was settled for approximately $22 million.²

The changing landscape of PFAS class actions in Australia

The rise of consumer-led actions

It is often the case that US litigation trends are predictive of emerging trends in the Australian legal landscape. This was the case historically with the rise of third-party litigation funding, as well as mass tort and shareholder class action disputes. Whilst there are features of the Australian legal system that make Australia a less attractive market for class action proceedings (principally, the absence of punitive damages and an opt-out, rather than opt-in system), the US is generally seen as an early indicator of potential Australian developments.

Whilst Australia has been slower to litigate PFAS issues than the US, the 3M consumer-led claim signals a shift towards manufacturers, rather than government-related claims. This shift mirrors the US trend of targeting manufacturers for environmental contamination, potentially paving the way for increased litigation against manufacturers of PFAS-containing products in Australia. However, it is unlikely that Australia will reach the extent of litigation seen in the US given Australia has generally not been involved in the manufacturing of PFAS.

If successful, this case could encourage similar consumer-led claims, further expanding the scope of PFAS litigation beyond government accountability and into corporate liability.

The potential for human health impact and personal injury claims

To date, in Australia there is has been no judicially recognised scientific link established between PFAS exposure and adverse human health impacts. The Australian government has established an Expert Health Panel for PFAS, which has found that no evidence of human disease or other clinically significant harm resulting from PFAS exposure at this time.³

In the US however, a growing number of scientific studies have drawn links between PFAS exposure and illnesses such as kidney, breast and testicular cancers, altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes.⁴

It is worthwhile noting that the PFAS Health Study (2021) conducted by the Australian National University did find increased adverse psychological impacts as a result of PFAS contamination in three impacted communities (such as those in Williamtown, Oakey and Katharine).⁵ The increase of scientific evidence in Australia may result in plaintiffs bringing personal injury claims in Australian courts, including seeking damages for psychological injury arising from PFAS contamination in the future.

Remediation action

Another potential avenue for large-scale PFAS litigation is the costs of remediating PFAS contamination. US litigation has seen major settlements between 3M, DuPont and municipal water providers to help providers test, monitor and remediate PFAS water contamination. In Australia, this may present itself as state water authorities, local councils or regional utilities companies commencing actions against manufacturers for remediation costs linked to PFAS-contaminated water sources.

For municipal water authorities, PFAS contamination presents a significant challenge. The costs associated with testing, monitoring, and remediating PFAS-affected water sources are considerable. If litigation trends in the US continue to influence the Australian landscape, water authorities may explore legal avenues to recover these costs from PFAS manufacturers and suppliers. Given the recent class actions against 3M and other corporations, entities responsible for providing clean drinking water may need to assess their potential exposure and consider proactive risk management strategies, including possible legal claims.

Key takeaways

It seems inevitable that PFAS is here to stay as a risk issue for future litigation. Given the media attention and significance of PFAS as a public health issue, the forum of a class action appears most likely for future PFAS claims, rather than individual actions.

The 3M litigation represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of PFAS-related class actions in Australia. By adopting a consumer-led approach and incorporating claims of human health impacts, this case signals a potential shift toward broader accountability for PFAS contamination. As scientific research advances and litigation in the US continues to shape global legal trends, Australian courts may see an increase in claims against manufacturers, municipalities, and other entities responsible for PFAS exposure.

Whether this case sets a precedent for future litigation or remains an outlier will depend on the evidence presented and the willingness of courts to recognise new forms of harm linked to PFAS. Regardless, the growing momentum of PFAS litigation suggests that manufacturers and regulators alike should prepare for continued legal scrutiny and potential litigation in the years ahead.

Stay up to date on class actions

Complete the form below to subscribe to Wotton Kearney’s Class Actions updates.