Australia is seeking more than A$2 billion from 3M over PFAS contamination linked to firefighting foam used at 28 Defence bases, in what Attorney-General Michelle Rowland has described as the largest legal claim ever brought by the Commonwealth.
The federal government filed the case against US-based 3M Company and its Australian subsidiary in the Federal Court on May 28, 2026. It is attempting to recover past expenses and the future cost of managing contamination caused by aqueous film-forming foam, commonly called AFFF.
The claim concerns environmental, economic and cultural damage. It does not seek compensation for personal injuries or individual health conditions, Assistant Defence Minister Peter Khalil said when the proceedings were announced.
What the government alleges
AFFF was widely used to extinguish fires involving fuel and other flammable liquids. Some older formulations contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which can remain in soil and water for long periods because they break down very slowly.
The Commonwealth alleges that 3M withheld information about the environmental effects of its foam and made statements that did not reflect what the company knew at the time.
According to Rowland, the case includes allegations that internal environmental testing identified harmful effects while the foam was presented as biodegradable, non-toxic and safe to dispose of in recommended ways. These remain allegations and will need to be tested through the court process.
The government’s official statement on the proceedings says the action is intended to recover costs carried by taxpayers rather than determine individual compensation claims.
Cleanup costs have reached A$1.3 billion
Defence says it has spent more than A$1.3 billion responding to PFAS contamination. That total includes approximately A$408 million in legal settlements and claims, as well as investigation, water treatment, soil management and assistance for communities near affected bases.
More than 200,000 tonnes of contaminated soil have been removed or treated. Seven water-treatment plants have processed over 13 billion litres of water, while 785 properties have received water assistance in different forms.
The amount sought from 3M includes costs already incurred and expenses expected to arise as monitoring and remediation continue. Conditions differ across the 28 bases, meaning some locations may require longer-term water treatment or measures to prevent contamination moving beyond Defence land.
How 3M has responded
3M has denied wrongdoing and said it intends to defend the case. The company said it never manufactured PFAS in Australia and stopped selling the firefighting foams involved approximately two decades ago.
It has further argued that the Department of Defence continued using PFAS-containing firefighting foam for nearly 20 years after 3M ended those Australian sales. The court will have to consider the conduct of both the supplier and the foam’s user when assessing responsibility and any damages.
In December 2022, 3M announced that it would leave PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025. The company now says it completed that manufacturing exit, although transitional work involving existing products, facilities and third-party components continues.
Why PFAS contamination remains difficult
PFAS refers to a large group of manufactured chemicals rather than a single substance. They have been used since the 1950s in products designed to resist heat, grease, stains and water.
Their persistence allows contamination to remain after the original foam has stopped being used. PFAS can move from soil into groundwater and nearby waterways, making containment and treatment technically difficult and expensive.
Health authorities continue to study the effects of different PFAS compounds and exposure levels. Australian officials have said evidence about some health outcomes remains limited, while international agencies have identified associations between exposure to certain PFAS and adverse effects. The government’s current lawsuit is confined to the Commonwealth’s environmental, economic and cultural costs.
Concern about persistent chemicals extends beyond military land. Research examining PFAS detected in breakfast cereals has highlighted questions about the different ways these substances may enter food and the wider environment.
Read More:
Why the case matters for corporate responsibility
The proceedings come as Australian authorities place greater attention on whether manufacturers should bear more of the cost when products create lasting environmental or safety problems. That same question of responsibility arises in consumer cases, including the recent recall of Woodure toddler stools following injury reports.
However, the 3M case is different in scale. It concerns decades of alleged environmental damage, complex remediation work and future expenses that may continue long after the original firefighting products disappeared from use.
The filing begins what could become a lengthy Federal Court case involving historical records, scientific evidence, product information and site-specific cleanup costs. No damages have yet been awarded, and the A$2 billion figure represents the amount being sought rather than a confirmed liability.
Defence says remediation and community assistance will continue while the lawsuit proceeds. Any settlement or court judgment could influence how cleanup costs are divided between governments and chemical manufacturers in future Australian contamination cases.
Make Swikblog your go-to source on Google for reliable updates, smart insights, and daily trends.
