ESG (environmental, social and governance) considerations have been increasingly shaping corporate strategy, investor priorities and regulatory landscapes. Among ESG-related risks emerging in the UK is litigation tied to ‘forever chemicals’, also known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). These chemicals, long used in industrial and consumer products, have been at the centre of environmental litigation in the US and have started to flow into the UK. Associate Francesca Bugg examines the implications of this growing wave of legal action in the UK.

PFAS

PFAS are synthetic compounds prized for their resistance to heat, water and oil. They have been used in everything from firefighting foams, non-stick cookware and food packaging to cosmetics and textiles. But their durability in the environment has raised serious health and ecological concerns, resulting in the nickname, ‘forever chemicals’. PFAS have been linked to cancer, immune system disruption and other diseases, prompting regulatory scrutiny and litigation, particularly in the United States.

Litigation in the United States

PFAS-related lawsuits have led to multibillion-dollar settlements for chemical giants such as DuPont, Corteva and Chemours. Most recently, on 4 August 2025, it was announced that the companies had reached an agreement with the state of New Jersey to pay $875m over 25 years to settle environmental claims, including claims related to PFAS pollution.

In 2023, the same three firms reached a settlement agreement with the US state of Ohio for $110m to resolve claims associated with PFAS. In the same year, 3M agreed to pay $10.3bn to settle hundreds of claims that it had polluted public drinking water with the chemicals.

In the US, these claims have predominantly been brought by individuals and public entities alleging personal injury or health-related harms linked to PFAS exposure, as well as by municipalities seeking compensation for the costs of water treatment and environmental remediation. This distinction in claimant type is important. Personal injury claims have driven high-value settlements in the US, but such claims are less likely to achieve similar outcomes in the UK. This is due to differences in legal frameworks, damage quantification and the absence of a robust class action mechanism outside limited contexts, such as those related to competition law.

Litigation momentum in the UK

Although PFAS litigation in the UK is still in its infancy, recent developments suggest a shift is underway. Law firm Leigh Day announced a pre-action settlement in September 2025 involving alleged PFAS pollution in North Yorkshire. The case centred on a household near an Angus Fire factory that previously manufactured firefighting foam. The matter was settled through pre-action correspondence, and Angus Fire Limited made no admission of liability. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has opened a six-month public consultation to gather stakeholder views on PFAS in firefighting foams.

Leigh Day is also investigating claims linked to AGC Chemicals’ facility in Thornton-Cleveleys, Lancashire. While these cases are likely to echo the injury-based litigation seen in the US, they are currently unfolding on a much smaller scale and appear to involve individual claimants rather than the large-scale, multi-party actions typical of US proceedings. Nonetheless, they signal that UK businesses and affected individuals are increasingly willing to pursue legal remedies for PFAS contamination.

UK regulatory gap

The announcement this year of the proposed EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulation (EU REACH) marked a watershed moment. If enacted, it could prohibit over 10,000 PFAS compounds within three years, with staggered exemptions extending up to 18 years for certain uses. Meanwhile, US states are accelerating bans across certain categories, including firefighting foams, children’s goods and food packaging.

The UK’s regulatory framework for PFAS remains fragmented and underdeveloped, lagging significantly behind Europe and the US in implementing enforceable PFAS controls. There are currently few restrictions on PFAS under UK REACH (the regulation that governs the use of chemical substances in the UK). However, recent momentum suggests a turning point, with a focus now being given to PFAS regulation in the UK. While regulation of PFAS is presently thin on the ground, that appears likely to change. In the UK Reach Work Programme for 2024/2025, the HSE confirmed that it is gathering evidence and engaging with stakeholders on potential restrictions on the wide dispersive uses of PFAS.

Insurers, property developers and industrial operators face mounting legal exposure, particularly where historical environmental assessments failed to account for PFAS contamination. Multinational manufacturers face heavy compliance demands and litigation risks due to the complex mix of global regulations. When supply chains cross different countries, it is harder to stay compliant, and previous oversights are now emerging as liabilities.

Water pollution: the low-hanging fruit

Water pollution claims may offer the most straightforward path for claims in the UK. There are currently no specific standards for PFAS listed in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulation 2016. However, in January 2021, the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) (which enforces these regulations) updated its guidance on the regulations specific to certain PFAS concentrations in drinking water. Monitoring of PFAS levels is now required, with action to be taken if concentrations exceed prescribed thresholds. Additionally, 45 additional PFAS have been added to the monitoring requirement. The risk of water pollution claims in the UK would increase if maximum concentration limits were to be placed on PFAS in drinking water. Although this has not happened yet, it could do so in the short to medium term.

If UK regulators impose strict concentration limits on PFAS in drinking water, litigation risk will escalate. Utilities, manufacturers and landowners could face costly cleanup orders and compensation claims.

These types of claims are likely to be more akin in scale and value to the municipal and public authority claims seen in the United States, where local governments and water utilities have sought compensation for the costs of treating contaminated water supplies. In the UK context, similar claims would likely arise from civil or commercial losses, rather than personal injury, such as increased costs incurred by public bodies or regulated organisations. For example, a local authority, central government department or water company responsible for providing safe drinking water may be required to undertake remedial measures or infrastructure upgrades that would not have been necessary but for the presence of PFAS in the water systems under their control.

ESG landscape and corporate protection

The ESG perimeter has expanded beyond compliance to business continuity, reputational risk and investor scrutiny. Companies and public bodies are increasingly at risk due to indirect exposure through complex supply chains. Those corporates looking to be proactive will be incorporating PFAS into their risk framework and mapping the liabilities, particularly in highly regulated markets.

The ESG stakes are high. Directors and officers must now assess not only operational exposure but also the financial and reputational fallout from current and legacy contamination. Failure to act could trigger shareholder actions, regulatory penalties and litigation.

You can find further information regarding our expertise, experience and team on our Commercial Litigation and ESG Disputes pages.

If you require assistance from our team, please contact us or alternatively request a call back from one of our lawyers by submitting this form.

Subscribe – In order to receive our news straight to your inbox, subscribe here. Our newsletters are sent no more than once a month.