- Property & Casualty
- Life & Health
- Knowledge Center
-
About Us
About Us OverviewCorporate Information
TOP
The PFAS substance group, which has been used for decades, has now also come to the attention of the public and legislators. Scientific findings are gradually confirming that PFAS are harmful to health and are associated with various diseases. As a result, there are already many regulations on individual PFAS groups worldwide, and numerous restrictions on other PFAS substances have been introduced. Awareness in Europe has also changed due to new legal developments in the USA with the first-class action lawsuits and settlement payments totalling billions. The new EU legislation on class action introduced in 2023 also harbors new potential for claims. This article presents current and planned regulations as well as relevant court cases.
Per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of more than 10,000 different chemicals of non-natural origin. In chemical terms, they are organic compounds consisting of carbon chains of different lengths in which the hydrogen atoms are completely or partially replaced by fluorine atoms.1 The bond between carbon and fluorine is so stable that it can only be broken with the highest energy input (e.g., high-temperature combustion).
One of the specific features of these fabrics is that they are particularly water, dirt and grease repellent. They are also thermally stable under extreme conditions, e.g. extreme temperatures. PFAS are persistent and bioaccumulative, i.e., they accumulate in plants and in the human organism.
PFAS are found in a variety of everyday products, such as textiles, non-stick coatings, paper coatings and cosmetics. PFAS are also used in fire extinguishing foams (AFFF – Aqueous Film Forming Foam, pronounced “A3F”), air conditioning systems, and a variety of medical products.
The special properties of this group of substances are problematic regarding their spread in the environment. PFAS enter the environment through a variety of routes and are already detectable everywhere. PFAS are released into the environment during disposal and thus into the water cycle. In addition to the premises of PFAS manufacturers, typical PFAS hotspots are areas where fire extinguishing foams have been used, e.g., fire brigade training areas at airports. According to research by the journalist network “Forever Pollution Project”, there are almost 23,000 contaminated sites in Europe where PFAS have been detected.2
Humans absorb PFAS through water and food. PFAS are suspected of causing various diseases, such as certain types of cancer, liver and thyroid diseases, increased cholesterol levels and lower birth weight in children.3 A direct link between the intake of PFAS and a specific disease has not (yet) been proven. So far, this is the main difference to asbestos.
There are already numerous regulations worldwide regarding individual PFAS, but there are no standardised regulations and limit values to date. The following list of regulations in the EU represents a selection of the legislation in force to date and is not exhaustive.
The Stockholm Convention4 on persistent organic pollutants has the explicit aim of eliminating certain POPs (persistent organic pollutants). The Convention, which came into force on 17 May 2004 and has been ratified by 186 countries, aims to protect people and the environment from the harmful effects of these persistent organic chemicals. The substances covered by the Convention are subject to worldwide bans and restrictions. These include PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonic acid), PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFHxs (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid) from the PFAS substance group, with individual exceptions for use without alternatives.5 Further bans or the cancellation of exemptions are currently under review.
These bans are transposed into European law by the POP Regulation ((EC) No. 2019/1021).6 Annex I of the Regulation contains the list of prohibited substances. The ban also includes mixtures or articles containing such substances. Annex II contains the list of substances subject to restrictions. In part, the POP Regulation goes beyond the obligations of the Stockholm Convention. There are exemptions with transitional periods for uses with no alternative, such as implantable medical devices and fire-fighting foams.
Other specific EU regulations and directives deal with PFAS in certain areas, including bans, restrictions and maximum levels for drinking water and food:
There are specific regulations on PFAS in the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Regulation.7 It distinguishes between a restriction, which prohibits the use of the substance, and inclusion in the candidate list as a “substance of very high concern”. The latter may continue to be manufactured and used.
From the PFAS group, “restrictions” apply to the following substances perfluorinated carboxylic acids (C9‑14 PFCAs), polyfluorinated silanes, PFHxa8 and PFOA (already regulated in the POP Regulation).
The following PFAS are included in the “candidate list” as “Substances of Very High Concern”: PFHpA, PFHxs, PFBS and GenX ((2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro‑2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid).9
The POP and REACH regulations are independent legal provisions that must be observed in parallel in the EU. The stricter regulation applies in each case. This means that the placing on the market, waste treatment and labelling provisions of the POP Regulation (POP: persistent organic pollutants) must be observed. Furthermore, the authorisation obligation and the notification obligations under the REACH Regulation must be complied with.
The Drinking Water Directive10 sets limit values for PFAS in drinking water. This directive had to be transposed into national law by 12 January 2023. Effective 13 January 2026, Member States must ensure that drinking water complies with the specified parameter values for PFAS. From this date, water suppliers will also be obliged to monitor drinking water for PFAS and must act if the values are exceeded.
This regulation11 sets maximum levels for certain PFAS substances in food. For PFOS and PFOA, among others, maximum levels in various foods, such as eggs, fish, mussels, crustaceans, meat and game meat, are effective as of 1 January 2023.
Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste has been in force since 11 February 2025,12 and will apply from 12 August 2026 (Art. 71 sentence 2).
This proposal tightens the requirements for substances contained in packaging by introducing a restriction on the placing on the market of packaging that meets food and contains PFAS above certain thresholds.
Article 5 no. 5 is particularly important: “From 12 August 2026, food-contact packaging shall not be placed on the market if it contains per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in a concentration equal to or above the following limit values, (...)”.
At the initiative of Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, a comprehensive restriction of all PFAS is proposed, covering the manufacture, placing on the market, and use of PFAS.13
The proposal follows the “group approach”, i.e., the entire group of persistent PFAS or those that degrade into persistent PFAS are covered in order to avoid “regrettable substitution” (even of substances that do not yet exist). Exceptions should only be possible if their use is currently indispensable or if socio-economic advantages outweigh the disadvantages for people and the environment.
The proposal was submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in January 2023. The 6‑month consultation process was completed in September 2023. Currently, the authorities of the five countries that drafted the original proposal and ECHA’s independent Scientific Committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Socio-Economic Analyses (SEAC) are reviewing the comments.14 As soon as the committees’ opinions are finalized, they are forwarded to the EU Commission together with the revised proposal and the comments. The Commission then decides on a restriction together with the EU Member States (expected in 2025).15
In January 2022, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) presented a restriction proposal for PFAS used in firefighting foams.16 The aim is to ban the placing on the market, use and manufacture of all PFAS in fire-fighting foams after sector-specific transition periods. Furthermore, the use of the chemicals will be restricted to “flammable liquids (class 8 fire)” and requirements for disposal and labelling will be regulated.
The ECHA’s scientific committees completed their evaluation of the proposal in June 2023 and will forward the ban proposal to the Commission in the next step. In the opinion of the committees, a ban is the appropriate measure.17 This proposal is not included in the more comprehensive PFAS restriction proposed by the five national authorities and runs in parallel with this proposal.
All the above-mentioned legislation from international conventions and EU law applies to Germany. Accordingly, the overriding obligations from EU regulations regarding PFAS apply directly in Germany. Only the EU Drinking Water Directive had to be transposed into German law.18
A drinking water limit value for PFAS according to the Drinking Water Ordinance has not existed in Germany to date. This will change beginning in 2026 (see above under EU law).
The amendment to the German Drinking Water Ordinance came into force on 24 June 2023. Only the EU limit value (“sum of PFAS”, 0.1 µg/L), which includes 20 PFAS, was adopted. For four specific substances from the PFAS group (PFHxS, PFOS, PFOA, PFNA), the Drinking Water Ordinance will additionally set a limit value of 0.02 µg/L for the sum of these compounds from 2028. This value is stricter than the minimum requirement specified by the EU.
The European directives relating to PFAS have been transposed into French law, including the EU Drinking Water Directive, which France has transposed into national law with Ordinance No. 2022‑161119 and its implementing decrees, which relate to access to and the quality of drinking water. The maximum permissible PFAS content in water for human consumption comes into force from January 2026. Decree 02/02/199820 regulates the authorized emissions from installations classified as polluting (ICPE) and sets limits on the concentration of PFOS in water discharged into the natural environment.
The law21 to protect the French public from PFAS has finally been adopted by Parliament on 20 February 2025. The law has the following objectives:
The law is due to be published in the “Journal Officiel” shortly.
In addition, the government introduced an interministerial action plan in April 2024 to:
With these measures, France is going beyond the requirements of European law.
In various European countries such as Belgium, Sweden, France, Italy and the Netherlands, there have already been several court cases in connection with PFAS.
The lawsuits focus primarily on cases involving contaminated drinking water in the vicinity of PFAS manufacturers, military bases, and airfields. The amounts are still moderate, although the first high settlement amounts have been paid.22
PFAS environmental damage primarily occurs to soil, groundwater and surface water at and near airports, military bases/barracks and the chemical industry. The causes of PFAS damage are mainly extinguishing operations and exercises, contaminated sites, fire damage, ongoing production, soil and wastewater discharges. As awareness of PFAS risks grows, there is a risk of an increase in legal proceedings, also in the form of European class actions.
In May 2019, Stadtwerke Rastatt filed a lawsuit for payment of EUR 6.5 million and assessment of further damages against a compost manufacturer in the district of Rastatt due to the contamination of soil and groundwater with PFAS, which allegedly distributed compost contaminated with paper sludge as fertiliser on more than 100 hectares of farmland in the region until the end of 2008.23 The contamination spread through the region via the flow of groundwater.
Stadtwerke Rastatt had to shut down one of its waterworks and incur high costs for filter systems due to the contamination of the soil. A judgement is still pending.
In 2017, the municipality of Hügelsheim sued the same composting company and its management board as in the Rastatt case for damages totalling EUR 150,000. Here, too, the plaintiff claimed that the application of PFAS-containing fertiliser to arable land was the cause of the soil contamination.
On 25 July 2024, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Baden-Baden declared the action to be partially justified on the merits. In addition, the court established the liability of the defendant company and its management board as joint and several debtors for the damage that the plaintiff has suffered or will suffer as a result of the application of paper sludge compost mixtures contaminated with perfluorinated and polyfluorinated chemicals to agricultural land in the plaintiff’s municipal area in connection with securing the municipality’s drinking water supply.24 A drinking water well in the municipality of Hügelsheim has already had to be shut down because it contained excessive levels of PFAs.
The court considered it to be undisputed that the defendants had applied a mixture of compost and PFAS-containing paper sludge purchased from the paper industry to arable land. The amount of damages is to be determined in the further course of the proceedings, according to the court. The defendants intend to appeal against the judgement, which is not final, to the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe.
On 5 December 2023, the Swedish Supreme Court ruled in a declaratory judgement that more than 150 residents in Ronneby, who had high PFAS levels in their blood due to drinking water contaminated with PFAS, had suffered personal injury within the meaning of the Product Liability Act.25
The residents had filed a lawsuit against the municipal waterworks Ronneby Miljö och Teknik AB after its drinking water contained high levels of PFAS – presumably due to fire-fighting foam used in the neighbourhood. The plaintiffs argued that the substance detected in their blood after ingesting the water had caused them personal injury within the meaning of the Swedish Product Liability Act. According to EU Directive 85/374/EEC26 on the harmonisation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, on which the law is based, compensation must be paid for personal injury caused by a defect in a product. Drinking water also qualifies as a product.
After the District Court had initially upheld the claim, the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that although the high PFAS levels in the residents’ blood posed an increased risk of certain health impairments and illnesses compared to people who had not been exposed to the same pollution, this risk of future damage did not constitute personal injury. It therefore dismissed the claim.
The Swedish Supreme Court only partially agreed with this. It found that the risk of physical harm occurring in the future could not in principle be regarded as personal injury within the meaning of the law. However, due to the elevated PFAS levels in the plaintiffs’ blood, sufficiently proven as a substance leading to an increased risk of illness, it considered this to be a significant physical impairment that constituted personal injury.
It was not part of the Supreme Court’s examination to comment on the extent to which the personal injuries had led to injury consequences that would entitle to compensation, nor the amount of any compensation. That will have to be clarified in further proceedings.
In 2018, high PFOS levels were detected in the soil during road construction work near the 3M chemical site in Antwerp.
After years of dispute over environmental pollution, US conglomerate 3M agreed in an out-of-court settlement to pay EUR 571 million to the regional government of Flanders (Belgium) and other local projects to decontaminate the soil and reduce air pollution.27
In May 2023, residents living in the immediate vicinity of the plant with elevated PFAS levels in their blood won a lawsuit against 3M. The court in Antwerp awarded the plaintiffs, a family from Zwijndrecht, compensation of EUR 500 per person.28 In the same case, the Dutch government is holding 3M liable for damage caused by the discharge of PFAS into the River Scheldt, which is also alleged to have contaminated areas in the Netherlands with PFAS.29
These two court cases concern two industrial plants in the “Valley of Chemistry” south of Lyon: the Arkema and Daikin chemical sites. PFAS are used there to produce polymers. Samples show high PFAS levels in groundwater, air, soil and tap water. Workers and residents are exposed to PFAS contamination. In May 2022, an association filed a lawsuit due to the environmental and health damage caused by ICPE (Installations Classées pour la Protection de l’Environnement, or environmentally hazardous installations).30
A regional decree31 obliges Arkema to phase out PFAS 6:2 FTS by the end of 2024. Since then, in May 2023, a group of residents (including farmers, trade unions, parents, and injured parties) and associations have filed an environmental criminal complaint against Arkema. They are demanding compensation for the damage caused to residents and the environment.32
The recent PFAS incidents have prompted France to act. A law to protect the population from PFAS risks is expected to be enacted shortly.
Claims caused by PFAS can affect various insurance classes, including Environmental Liability, Product Liability, General Liability, Employer’s Liability and D&O.
Possible insured losses with high amounts of damage include damage to health and the environment, including clean‑up costs. The unlimited passive legal protection function in the German market for the defence of possibly unjustified claims should also not be underestimated.
In addition to PFAS manufacturers, all industries that could (co‑)cause PFAS contamination, particularly of water and the environment (e.g., fire departments, water suppliers, packaging industry, cosmetic industry), must also be considered as potential risks.
The prerequisite for covered damage is a causal link between the event and the damage. At the present time, however, PFAS are already present almost everywhere in the environment and are not degradable. There is also currently no evidence of a typical PFAS disease pattern. This is currently a significant difference to asbestos. Therefore, according to current scientific knowledge, it seems difficult to prove a causal link in PFAS damage events. However, new scientific findings could make such evidence possible in the future and thus establish a direct causal link. Scientific monitoring is therefore essential.
The representative action, which has been in force in all EU member states since 2023, now also enables class actions by consumers in Germany without the risk of litigation. The spread and effects must also be monitored in connection with PFAS claims.
As with other liability risks, particular attention should be paid to the US markets. There are already numerous class actions and PFAS manufacturers have already paid billions in settlements (e.g., USD 10.3bn from 3M)33. As with the opioid crisis, the litigation industry in the US has gained enormous momentum because of social inflation and litigation funders.
It is therefore possible that class actions will not only be directed against PFAS manufacturers but will spread to other industries and that further judgements with high damages (“nuclear verdicts”) can therefore be expected.
PFAS are widespread and have already contaminated numerous areas globally. A risk to the environment and health can be assumed, even if the scientific evidence of the effects of individual PFAS has not yet been finalised.
It is therefore essential and urgently recommended to analyse your company’s own inventory regarding all PFAS-relevant sectors and to continue scientific monitoring and observation of current legislative procedures at the EU level and case law.
Particular attention should also be paid to PFAS manufacturers that have already been involved in lawsuits and/or settlement payments in the US. In addition, potential exposures to environmental liability should be closely scrutinised and monitored.
