Australia’s federal government has accused 3M of concealing for decades what it knew about health and environmental risks linked to its firefighting foam, as it seeks damages exceeding $2 billion over contamination at 28 defence bases.
The case, filed in May 2026 by attorney general Michelle Rowland against 3M and its Australian subsidiary, centres on aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, which contained PFAS ‘forever chemicals’. The Commonwealth alleges that 3M knew more than 50 years ago that its firefighting foam products could harm human and animal health and damage the environment.
The Federal Court claim, set out in more than 1,600 pages of filings, cites 310 internal 3M documents, including test reports and environmental data. Commonwealth lawyers describe 3M’s conduct as intentional and reprehensible. The allegations have yet to be determined by the court.
The government alleges that 3M’s Australian operations should have known by no later than 1973 that AFFF could damage the environment and cause adverse health effects in humans. By 1979, according to the claim, 3M knew that PFAS variants in the foam persisted indefinitely in the environment, bioaccumulated and bioconcentrated in humans and animals, could be toxic to animals and could migrate into drinking water.
Commonwealth lawyers said the products sold to Australia were known to persist in water and soil, and to remain persistent in the human body and in animals. They said the chemicals contributed to reduced kidney function, alterations in immune function, effects on fertility and puberty, and lower birth weight in babies.
The filings cite a 1978 study in which macaques died within the first few days of exposure to one component of AFFF until its concentration was significantly reduced. At lower doses, the animals showed signs of toxicity, including digestive system disorders.
An internal company document from April 1981 said 3M was barring women ‘of child bearing potential’ from working at one of its plants in Alabama ‘so they will not be exposed to a type of fluorochemical that can cause birth defects in rats.’
The government says those internal findings conflicted with information 3M supplied to Australian officials. Company brochures provided to the government as late as 1973 described AFFF products as ‘non-toxic’ and ‘non-irritating’ to humans. The brochures said the foam would not harm grass, was biodegradable and was ‘not expected to adversely affect the ecology of receiving streams.’
When the federal government asked 3M in June 1983 whether AFFF had ‘any harmful environmental effects,’ an answer apparently was not forthcoming, according to the claim. The Commonwealth further alleges that 3M and 3M Australia took no meaningful steps to properly or adequately warn purchasers of 3M AFFF about the risks.
The lawsuit alleges that the companies continued to manufacture, market, distribute and sell AFFF for at least 24 years, until at least 2003. The Australian Defence Department began phasing out PFAS chemicals in 2004.
A 3M spokesperson said in May that the company never manufactured PFAS in Australia and stopped selling the products in question around two decades ago. Another spokesperson said the Defence Department continued to use the products for nearly two decades after 3M stopped selling them.
The Commonwealth says it has incurred $214 million for investigations, remediation and ongoing monitoring. It has also incurred $367 million in settlements from five class actions brought against the government. The claimed contamination affects defence bases and surrounding areas, although the full extent of contamination at civilian sites is unknown.
The case comes after three key PFAS chemicals were banned in Australia last year because of long-running concerns about environmental contamination and health risks. PFOA, one of the chemicals now banned, has been identified as cancer-causing in humans. More than 14,000 PFAS compounds remain in circulation.
The Australian proceedings form part of wider litigation involving PFAS. A New York Attorney General lawsuit filed on July 9, 2026, named 3M, EIDP Inc., The Chemours Company, DuPont de Nemours and Corteva, alleging similar concealment. The Australian case will return to court on October 16.
Comments (0)