Australia Sues 3M for AU$2 Billion Over PFAS Foam at 28 Defence Sites
Updated
Updated · BBC.com · May 28
Australia Sues 3M for AU$2 Billion Over PFAS Foam at 28 Defence Sites
15 articles · Updated · BBC.com · May 28
AU$2 billion is what Australia is seeking from 3M and 3M Australia, alleging PFAS-laced firefighting foam contaminated 28 defence locations in the government's biggest-ever legal claim.
The suit says 3M withheld and misrepresented what it knew about the foam's environmental risks, while assuring authorities it was safe to use and dispose of.
More than AU$1 billion has already been spent investigating, remediating and mitigating PFAS contamination at defence estate sites, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said.
3M said it never made PFAS in Australia, stopped selling the foam there 20 years ago, and will fight the case, adding Defence kept using PFAS-containing foam for two decades after sales ended.
PFAS chemicals, used in products from firefighting foam to non-stick pans, persist in soil, water and the body; 3M said in 2022 it would stop making and using them.
After a $10B US payout, can 3M survive a new global wave of 'forever chemical' lawsuits?
Australia is suing over contaminated bases. How many other countries are sitting on a hidden 'forever chemical' toxic legacy?
With 'forever chemicals' facing global bans, can science deliver a safe replacement for these uniquely durable but toxic substances?
Australia’s A$2 Billion Lawsuit Against 3M: The Global Stakes of PFAS Contamination and the Future of “Forever Chemicals” Regulation
Overview
On May 28, 2026, the Australian federal government launched a landmark A$2 billion lawsuit against 3M, marking its most significant legal action in recent memory. The case targets the economic, environmental, and cultural impacts of widespread PFAS contamination, rather than personal injury. The Department of Defence has already spent A$1.3 billion on cleanup, including A$408 million in settlements, and has treated or removed over 200,000 metric tons of contaminated soil. This lawsuit highlights the scale of the problem and the government's commitment to seeking accountability and recovering costs for affected communities.