Forever Chemicals Must Not Mean Forever Impunity -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

The cost of filtering polluted water will not pay for the damage done to your body. As the number of personal injury cases related to PFAS (“forever chemicals”) increases rapidly, the issue facing companies is something that cannot be resolved through environmental settlement; i.e., who is responsible for paying when the contamination of an area leads to illness?

The size of the litigation is clear. Judge Richard Gergel (U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation) has issued an order in August 2026, which states that he is currently managing over 15,000 separate lawsuits related to fire-fighting foam contamination in South Carolina. The lawsuits include water pollution, environmental damage and personal injury claims filed by firefighters and other people who were exposed to the foam. This does not mean that there are 15,000 individuals with confirmed medical issues or that all these cases will be combined into a single large class-action lawsuit.

On the other hand, 3M’s public water settlement includes payment of $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion. This large financial commitment resolves specific public water-system claims and does not represent full compensation for every person who believes they have suffered from illness. A filtration system cannot provide compensation for loss of earnings, fund cancer treatments, or extend a shortened life.

The expansion of responsibility, rather than a new form of law for PFAS injuries, is what makes this development so important. It expands from the contamination of infrastructure, such as water systems, to those individuals that consumed the water, used fire-fighting foam, or resided near polluted areas.

Science strengthens that reckoning but demands precision.

The IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans in 2023, while classifying PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. For PFOA, the IARC determined there was some limited human data relating to both kidney and testicular cancers; however, there was also sufficient animal data and strong mechanistic data. It is important to note that the classifications apply to specific chemical types within the PFAS family and do not represent a single risk level for all chemicals within that family.

Carcinogenic, hazard classification does not mean that the specific defendant being sued has caused the plaintiff’s cancer. Courts will look at exposure, time, diagnosis, other possible reasons why the cancer developed and whether there are good scientific methods used by experts to support their opinions. This distinction will protect valid claims of causation from exaggerated claims, but at the same time it will prevent legitimate scientific uncertainties from being used as a general defense for corporations.

Injustice lies at the center of this problem in an informational sense. While patients will have to piece together years of their exposures, manufacturers are the ones with access to all of their production records, toxicological studies and distribution history. Justice loses its meaning when the person who has the responsibility to provide evidence cannot acquire that evidence.

Four reforms should follow.

First, the court must require the defendants (manufacturers) to disclose in a timely manner all pertinent safety research, emissions data and product history information, while providing reasonable confidentiality protection. The independent expert will require access to the raw data. The scientific community must examine the manufacturers’ representations as thoroughly as they do the plaintiffs’ claims.

The second point is that governments need to create exposure registries and provide funding for clinically justified monitoring of populations with high levels of exposure. In those cases where a company has been found liable, they should pay their share of the associated costs. Also, a positive blood test cannot be used as an advertisement for a cancer diagnosis.

Settlement discussions should differentiate between cleanup, medical monitoring, and compensation for damages caused by the accident. Rules on who can participate in settlements, what types of expenses will be paid out, how the money will be distributed among participants, and the appeal process should be made public. Any advertising that claims individuals will receive a certain amount of cash as a result of the settlement is purely speculative until the actual settlement terms have been established.

Fourth, there needs to be regulatory action taken to limit avoidable exposures. To accomplish this regulators can utilize enforceable discharges, product labeling that includes information on the use of chemicals (or products containing chemicals), and the development of safer alternatives when possible. It’s also important to make sure that the exemptions for essential-uses remain small, and that those exemptions are periodically reviewed. Substituting one poorly studied fluorinated chemical with another is not a success.

Corporate restructuring must also undergo examination when there is evidence that assets have been relocated to avoid satisfying legal obligations. No amount of corporate size or public outrage can substitute for proof.

The lesson is applicable outside of American courts. Governments must take action on behalf of their citizens rather than allowing patients to fund many years of lawsuits against companies that caused them harm.

Industry made money off of selling those chemicals. The community should not be paying for the medical costs forever. “Forever” is how long the chemical will stay in our environment. This can’t be the same amount of time that industry gets away with its actions.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia