The Right Settlement? A Comparative Analysis of the 3M PFAS and Big Tobacco Settlements [Note]

Abstract

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, collectively known as PFAS, are chemical substances that have been used in manufacturing for many years. However, exposure to the chemicals has been linked to negative health outcomes. Because of an increasing awareness of PFAS exposure, particularly through contaminated drinking water, more lawsuits have been filed, resulting in pricey settlements. Specifically, this Note assesses the 3M PFAS Settlement to determine if the settlement is effective in addressing the PFAS exposure issue around the country.

To make this analysis, this Note compares the 3M PFAS Settlement’s key provisions with the Tobacco Master Settlement of 1998. This comparative analysis helps determine the strengths and weaknesses of the 3M Settlement based on the successes and mistakes of the Tobacco Master Settlement. After making the comparison, this Note concludes that the 3M PFAS Settlement is effective in providing financial support to water providers because of its clear purpose, direct payment to water providers, and stringent enforcement of payment regardless of whether 3M files for bankruptcy or is unable to pay. These are provisions that mark an improvement from the Tobacco Master Settlement.

The 3M PFAS Settlement falls short in addressing the entire PFAS issue given the costs of cleanup and health effects overtaking the settlement price. Yet, the 3M PFAS Settlement should not be deemed a failure, especially if more settlements and lawsuits follow. This trend appears to be taking place, as many more lawsuits are being filed, especially regarding health issues. What specific provisions future settlements will entail is unclear, but the 3M PFAS Settlement can be seen as a critical stepping-stone to holding major chemical companies accountable by paying to protect society from further exposure.