PFAS: From non-stick to stuck in court

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have moved from being a niche environmental concern to a significant real-world liability as their effects on human health, and associated legal and financial impacts, come into sharper focus. Due to their persistent nature of PFAS and increasing evidence of health hazards, PFAS have the potential to follow the pattern of tobacco and asbestos, where legal liabilities impacted companies for decades.

PFAS litigation is already creating multibillion-dollar liabilities that are materially relevant to many companies’ earnings and valuations, with exposures likely to grow as regulation tightens. A small group of upstream producers and concentrated hotspots drive a disproportionate share of PFAS legal and remediation risk, while downstream users can still face significant local liabilities and reputational damage despite not manufacturing PFAS themselves.

This report helps investors locate PFAS exposure in their portfolios and understand why it can materially affect cash flows, valuations and credit risk.

Using our new PFAS litigation risk dashboard, which scores 1079 publicly listed companies and 5248 associated facilities, investors and companies can estimate facility-level exposure associated with PFAS, take practical steps to reduce PFAS-related risk and begin shifting away from business models dependent on ‘forever chemicals’.

Key findings:

• PFAS-related litigation has expanded rapidly in both scope and scale, with rising settlement values and a tightening regulatory environment in key markets such as the United States and Europe.
• PFAS litigation has become one of the largest environmental mass tort litigations in American history, with more than 15,000 active lawsuits grouped together in federal court as of January 2026.
• For investors, the growing wave of PFAS-related settlements and legal costs could translate into material impacts on cash flow, balance sheets and credit profiles.

Investors should demand disclosure on PFAS use, contaminated sites, provisions and liability estimates, and integrate PFAS litigation liabilities explicitly into valuation, credit and risk models. They should also use voting and engagement to influence PFAS phase-out, accelerate due diligence, and align capital expenditure with a PFAS-limited future.

PFAS should be treated as a material risk factor that can extend from producers to downstream users, requiring integration into research, valuation and stewardship priorities.