From Non-Stick to Non-Stop Litigation: The Growth of PFAS Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), often called ‘forever chemicals’ are used to create repellant coatings, non-stick surfaces, and heat-resistant barriers. Since the 1940's, they have been used extensively world-wide with minimal regulatory oversight.[1] PFAS exist in thousands of forms, including perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"). PFOS has been used in firefighting foams, while PFOA has been used in products such as nonstick cookware.[2]

In the last 20 years, Canada has slowly increased the regulatory framework surrounding PFAS, but in the last 5-10 years, there has been a major push to better understand and regulate these chemicals. Increased scrutiny of the effects of PFAS has caused an increase in regulatory enforcement, and civil litigation, resulting in many industries rushing to swap PFAS-based products with safer alternatives.

In the United States, parties have been litigating for many years over harm claimed to be caused by PFAS, with US Courts approving multi-billion dollar settlements for public water system related claims (from defendant companies like 3M and DuPont).[3] In recent years, these claims have shifted to individual personal injury claims. The core allegation in many of these claims is that companies knew of the risks PFAS posed but failed to take adequate precautions. As of February 2026, there are thousands of personal injury lawsuits outstanding in the United States. For example, over 10,000 active lawsuits were consolidated in Multidistrict Litigation (MDL No. 2873) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, with the actions primarily related to allegations that PFAS-heavy firefighting foam used by the military and airports caused various cancers.[4]

In Canada in the last five years, PFAS related claims have gone from nearly non-existent to large national class actions. Several key actions are currently underway:

• In 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Egan v National Research Council of Canada[5] certified a class action brought by property owners against the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) for contamination of groundwater. At least 69 Plaintiffs have alleged that the NRC allowed PFAS to enter the surface water and groundwater at its National Fire Laboratory facility and failed to notify property owners. The Plaintiffs are claiming for remediation costs and diminished value to their land.
• In 2024, a representative plaintiff filed a proposed class action against 3M, Dupont, and other defendants (Lynch v 3M[6]), alleging that the defendants were aware of the risks posed by PFAS to human health and the environment but continued to manufacture and distribute these chemicals, resulting in widespread contamination and harm to the plaintiff and class members’ drinking water systems.
• Also commenced in 2024, is a parallel action, involving a similar claim by the government of British Columbia (BC v 3M[7]). In this proposed class action, the BC government alleges contamination of ground water and water treatment facilities, and is seeking to recover the costs of testing and removing PFAS from public drinking water systems.

On the regulatory side, Environment and Climate Change Canada is ramping up its enforcement of PFAS related regulations. For background, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (“CEPA”),[8] prescribes at section 81(4) that:

(4) Where a substance is not specified on the Domestic Substances List and the Minister publishes a notice in the Canada Gazette indicating that this subsection applies with respect to the substance, no person shall use the substance for a significant new activity that is indicated in the notice unless

(a) the person has provided the Minister with the prescribed information, on or before the date that is specified by the Minister or prescribed, accompanied by the prescribed fee; and

(b) the period for assessing the information specified by the Minister or provided under section 83 has expired.

The importation, sale, and distribution of certain products that have specific PFAS as an ingredient are considered a “significant new activity” under CEPA. Companies looking to import, sell, and distribute products containing PFAS in Canada should review CEPA and the Canada Gazette to determine whether notice is to be provided to the Federal Minister of the Environment.

With respect to PFAS products regulated by CEPA, two relevant regulatory proceedings have occurred since 2024:

• In 2024, Environment and Climate Change Canada charged Groupe Marcelle Inc., the largest cosmetic company in Canada, with one count of contravening subsection 81(4) of CEPA, for using PFAS in cosmetic products without first providing the government with the required regulatory information. Groupe Marcelle pleaded guilty in the Court of Quebec to the count and was ordered to pay a $500,000 fine.[9]
• Recently, on January 13, 2026, at the Ontario Court of Justice, Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd., an American multinational cosmetics company, was fined $750,000 after pleading guilty to two counts of violating CEPA.[10] These two offences were related to the failure to notify the government regarding a “significant new activity” – selling eyeliner products that had PFAS ingredients – contrary to section 81(4) of the Act, and the failure to comply with an environmental protection compliance, contrary to 238(1) of the Act. In addition to the fine, the company was ordered to notify its shareholders of the conviction.

These regulatory proceedings and the civil litigation actions discussed above show that the Canadian public and governmental regulators are holding companies accountable for PFAS-related health and environment harms. It is expected that litigation arising from PFAS-related injuries and damages will become more common, as the regulatory framework restricting the use of PFAS will develop further and become more stringent.

Stay tuned for updates on these proceedings, as well as any regulatory updates.

For more information on PFAS litigation or PFAS regulations, please contact Joel Franz, Aaron Mann, or any member of our Litigation Practice Group and Environmental & Energy Law Practice Group.