3M outlines defence in Australia's $2 billion PFAS lawsuit
3M has set out the broad shape of its defence in the Australian federal government's $2 billion lawsuit over PFAS contamination, during a case management hearing in the Federal Court. The case concerns allegations that firefighting foam used at 28 Defence Force bases across Australia contaminated land and water, including drinking water. The Commonwealth says the contamination affected surrounding areas and posed risks to human and animal health and the environment.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
At the hearing, 3M's counsel said the company would file its defence on 11 December and described the legal response as a large effort that would "attack" the claim. The company said it intended to plead three lines of defence: public nuisance, a Victorian Environment Protection Authority claim, and misleading and deceptive conduct. It also said the misleading and deceptive conduct issue would need to be separated between the overseas manufacturer and the local distributor of 3M products.
The federal government's statement of claim is 1,600 pages long and cites 310 internal company documents, according to the court material described in the hearing. The Commonwealth alleges 3M continued to make and sell aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, until 2003 despite knowing of the dangers of its chemical makeup since 1979. It also alleges the company falsely assured users the product was safe even though studies showed variants of PFAS were toxic to animals, could cause birth defects and harm the environment.
The lawsuit is understood to be the largest court claim ever brought by the Australian government. It seeks damages for alleged contamination at Defence Force sites and nearby areas, making the case significant both financially and legally. The dispute also reflects wider scrutiny of PFAS, a group of long-lasting chemicals that have prompted litigation and regulatory action in several countries because of their persistence in the environment.
Advert for a company owned by the publisher of 360LiveNews.
The Commonwealth's case centres on the use of AFFF at military bases, where firefighting foams were historically used because of their effectiveness against fuel fires. The government alleges the product's use led to widespread contamination and that 3M withheld evidence about the risks. In response, 3M is challenging the legal basis of parts of the claim, including the public nuisance argument, which its counsel said was not available in the matter.
What remains unclear is how the court will rule on the scope of the claims and which parts of the case will proceed in their current form. The next key milestone is the filing of 3M's defence, expected on 11 December, which should clarify the company's detailed response. The case is likely to remain closely watched because of its scale, the number of affected sites and the broader implications for environmental liability in Australia.
