The PFAS litigation landscape continues to evolve, with federal judges consolidating more and increasingly diverse PFAS-suits into the centralized Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) (MDL No. 2873). A recent decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) highlights this trend, as the City of Savannah’s PFAS suit was transferred to the MDL despite the City’s efforts to distance its claims from AFFF.

In February 2025, the City of Savannah, Georgia sued a group of PFAS manufacturers and industrial users in state court, alleging that they discharged PFAS-laden waste into the Savannah River and contaminated the City’s drinking water. The City sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and funds for treatment and remediation. Importantly, the City’s complaint included an “AFFF Disclaimer” expressly disavowing damages or claims related to AFFF. PFAS Plaintiffs often include such disclaimers in an effort to avoid transfer to the AFFF MDL—an MDL housing more than 10,000 cases involving claims that AFFF used in firefighting released harmful PFAS chemicals into the environment, contaminating water supplies and causing health and property damage.

In March 2025, one of the defendants sued by Savannah, 3M Company, removed the City’s case from state court to federal court in the Southern District of Georgia. Later, 3M requested that the case be transferred into the ongoing AFFF MDL.

On June 2, 2025, the JPML granted 3M’s request, issuing a Transfer Order bringing several PFAS-related actions—including the City of Savannah’s—into the AFFF MDL.

Though the City’s complaint explicitly disavowed damages or claims involving AFFF, the Panel nevertheless found transfer appropriate based on overlapping factual allegations with an existing MDL case, Allan v. 3M. In that case, an individual plaintiff alleged that he was injured by drinking AFFF-contaminated water from various municipal water providers, including the City of Savannah. The Panel emphasized that overlapping exposure pathways—even across different types of cases and plaintiffs—can warrant consolidation to promote efficiency.

Notably, the Panel rejected 3M’s argument that transfer was supported by an expert declaration suggesting the potential for AFFF contamination in the Savannah River basin. The Panel reaffirmed that it does not rely on such declarations to justify transfer when they merely show the possibility of AFFF involvement.

Key Takeaways:

• PFAS plaintiffs who disclaim AFFF-related harms can still find themselves swept into the AFFF MDL if their water systems are implicated in other pending MDL actions.

• In considering whether a case qualifies for transfer to the MDL, the JPML will focus on factual overlapand judicial efficiency, whether or not the plaintiff frames the case as AFFF-related.

• The JPML is hesitant to resolve competing factual narratives at the transfer stage—especially disagreements over whether or not the offending PFAS is AFFF-derived.

Our attorneys continue to monitor developments in the AFFF MDL and broader trends in PFAS litigation. We encourage clients to reach out to us if they have any questions or concerns about PFAS litigation or regulatory compliance.