PFAS under the spotlight: regulatory and litigation trends for forever chemicals

PFAS are a complex group of synthetic chemicals used since the 1950s in consumer products (including clothing, cosmetics, cookware and packaging) due to their ability to repel water, heat and oil. Their strong atomic bonds render them highly resistant to degradation. PFAS have been the subject of extensive scientific investigation since concerns regarding their effect on human health emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  While the result of this research is mixed – and work with a view to understanding the full extent of their impact continues – some studies have linked PFAS exposure  to immunosuppression, certain cancers and elevated cholesterol. 

In response, governments and independent researchers are endeavouring to understand the impacts of PFAS exposure on human health. PFAS are regulated internationally by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants ("Stockholm Convention"), which restricts the use of so-called persistent organic pollutants ("POPs"). The UK Environmental Agency's 2026 report,^[1] part of the government’s "PFAS Plan",^[2] is the government's first strategic framework targeting the reduction and mitigation of PFAS harms.

The EU is at the forefront of global PFAS regulation. Specific PFAS are banned under the REACH regime, ^[3] including (from April 2026) the sale and use of PFHxA in consumer mixtures, including waterproofing jackets, food packaging and certain cosmetics. Sector-specific bans – like the EU Toy Safety Regulation – also exist. PFAS are subject to additional obligations relating to classification and labelling, and distinct obligations apply to PFAS qualifying as 'substances of very high concern' ("SVHC"). The presence of SVHC is increasingly viewed as a product compliance issue, with the EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation requiring products containing sufficient levels of SVHC to disclose this in their digital product passports. The European Commission is also empowered to restrict specific substances in products (including PFAS) if they negatively impact sustainability, repairability, or recyclability, with the first group of products to be considered including tyres, paints, energy- and ICT-related products and detergents (among others).^[3]

The EU is also working on a landmark universal ban on over 10,000 PFAS. The proposal targets the manufacture, use, and placing on the market of PFAS in virtually all applications, with limited time-bound derogations for sectors where no viable alternatives exist. The European Commission will present a proposal following the conclusion of a scientific evaluation by the European Chemicals Agency, expected in 2026. In the meantime, France has introduced legislation prohibiting PFAS in cosmetics and certain textiles from January 2026, with wider restrictions planned for 2030.

The UK’s approach currently aligns with the Stockholm Convention through its own REACH regime and the POPs Regulations, which target specific PFAS. The Health and Safety Executive is considering stricter restrictions on firefighting foams, with broader regulation possible as the Environmental Agency and Parliamentary Select Committees continue their inquiries. As in the EU, PFAS in the UK are also governed by an overlapping web of product safety, environmental, and occupational health legislation. However, questions remain about the UK’s capacity to keep pace with the more ambitious EU reforms, placing businesses at potential risk of regulatory misalignment, supply chain disruption, and future cross-border claims.

PFAS litigation is on the rise globally. Claims brought in North America have typically alleged property damage and/or bodily injury arising from soil and water contamination connected with PFAS manufacturing. We are seeing similar actions in Australia and Europe. For example, in January 2026, 192 French citizens brought an unprecedented €36 million group claim against two companies for PFAS pollution in Lyon’s so-called "Chemical Valley", representing Europe's largest civil lawsuit brought in connection to PFAS. In the Netherlands, more than 2,700 residents are pursuing DuPont for knowingly discharging PFAS, allegedly endangering public health.  

Increasingly, legal action has targeted PFAS in consumer products. PFAS are often used in clothing (to assist in waterproofing and/or "sweat-wicking", and improve breathability, thermal stability and durability) and cosmetics products (including lipstick, waterproof mascara and nail polish). On 17 June 2025, a group of eighteen claimants filed a class action in the US, alleging that the makers of Gore-Tex had knowingly concealed the use of PFAS in its products through "greenwashing". Similar claims have been brought against beauty brands Shiseido – alleging that its bareMinerals products were deceptively marketed products as "clean" and "natural" but contained PFAS – and CoverGirl respectively.

Regulators are also hot on compliance. For instance, on 13 January 2026, Estée Lauder Companies Inc. was fined $750,000 in Canada for violating environmental laws after it sold eyeliner products containing Perfluorononyl Dimethicone. Consequences can be severe: as well as having to notify shareholders, Estée Lauder has been added to Canada's Environmental Offenders Registry.

No significant PFAS-related claims have been brought before the courts in England & Wales, and we see several barriers to successful actions:

• Claimants will need to grapple with questions of causation by showing that the product complained of is capable of, and did, cause injury, and that any alleged health effect was caused by the specific PFAS exposure relevant to the claim.  Similar questions of causation have also been hotly debated in PFAS-related litigation brought in other jurisdictions, including the US (concerning both whether the level of exposure and exposure to a specific type of PFAS is enough to prove causation).
  
  
• Such claims are likely to be most viable economically on the claimant side when brought collectively. Unlike in other jurisdictions, notably the US, there is no "opt out" class action regime in England & Wales that would be suitable for such claims where loss and damage will be inevitably individualised. They would therefore need to proceed as a form of group litigation (whether by means of a Group Litigation Order or similar) and while there is a long history of product liability claims being brought in that way before the English Courts, they inevitably require up-front investment by claimant law firms and/or litigation funders. In circumstances where scientific evidence as to defect and causation relation to the presence of PFAS in any product would be key, and as the state of scientific knowledge is still evolving, such claims would carry material litigation risks and therefore potential opportunity cost. 
  
  
• By contrast, the extensive disclosure and complex expert evidence necessary to establish liability will likely be disproportionate to the value of claims brought on an individual basis.

Nonetheless, the potential for PFAS-related claims continues to draw interest and much is likely to depend on how the scientific research, particularly as regards human health impacts, develops over the short to medium term. For example, the Environmental Agency's January 2026 report identifies high-risk sites contaminated with PFAS, and a recent investigation found that PFAS exists in headphones of several market leading brands. Such high-profile findings and allegations may encourage consumer and activist groups to find novel ways of bringing PFAS-related claims to shine a light on the use of forever chemicals, despite the inherent difficulties of such claims in the English legal system.

• Be cognisant of the risks of potentially misleading consumers about how, and if, PFAS is included in their products.
  
  
• Keep abreast of the complex and fast-evolving regulatory landscape.
  
  
• Those operating across complex supply chains should strengthen contractual terms to require disclosure of PFAS usage, compliance with relevant and local regulations and indemnities for breaches relating to PFAS use.
  
  
• Continue to invest, where possible, in viable alternatives to PFAS in product lines and value chains.