PFAS Regulation and Litigation Continue to Evolve as Federal Deadlines Slip and States Press Ahead

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances remain a top priority for regulators and litigants, but the legal landscape is fragmented and uncertain. At the federal level, the US Environmental Protection Agency continues to defend a major per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances rulemaking under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act while revisiting key parts of other rules under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, including extending certain compliance deadlines and signaling further regulation and enforcement.

States are continuing to fill perceived gaps, especially in consumer product regulation, creating a patchwork of differing definitions, deadlines, and compliance obligations. Litigation also continues to expand across environmental, personal injury, and consumer product fronts.

This Insight, the second of four based on our Earth Day webinar series, examines recent developments under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and provides an update on state consumer product regulation and key environmental litigation trends.

CERCLA LIABILITY QUESTIONS REMAIN FRONT AND CENTER

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2024 designation of two long-chain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), as hazardous substances under CERCLA was significant but did not introduce PFAS into the Superfund framework for the first time. PFAS had already been identified at more than 180 Superfund sites by 2019, and EPA has historically relied on CERCLA authorities to gather information and address PFAS as contaminants.

The rulemaking itself is notable for its use of CERCLA Section 102(a), an authority EPA had not previously deployed. The designations are based on whether a substance may pose a substantial danger to public health or welfare and are supported by a discretionary totality-of-circumstances analysis. Litigation challenging the rule remains pending in the DC Circuit, creating ongoing uncertainty even as the rule remains in effect.

The designations trigger several new requirements, including new reporting obligations, federal property transfer disclosures, and inclusion of PFOA and PFOS in Phase I environmental site assessments. The designations do not automatically require cleanup, leaving EPA and state agencies with significant discretion to act on a site-by-site basis.

Such discretion is paired with broad enforcement authority. EPA may conduct response actions, issue information requests, require remediation through unilateral orders, and recover costs. Private parties may pursue cost recovery and contribution claims.

EPA has signaled further action through a forthcoming Section 102(a) framework rule and a parallel Resource Conservation and Recovery Act rulemaking that could expand the scope of PFAS subject to regulation. Congressional and EPA efforts to mitigate so-called passive receiver liability add another layer of complexity for regulated parties.

DRINKING WATER RULE CURRENTLY STANDS AS REVISIONS LOOM

EPA’s first national enforceable PFAS drinking water standards established maximum contaminant levels for six PFAS along with a hazard index approach for mixtures. Finalized in 2024, the rule imposes monitoring, public notification, and treatment requirements, with initial monitoring due by 2027 and compliance obligations beginning in 2029.

EPA has since announced plans to revise the rule. The agency intends to retain the PFOA and PFOS standards while rescinding limits for certain other PFAS and eliminating the hazard index approach. It has also proposed extending compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS to 2031.

On May 1, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget completed its interagency review of EPA’s proposed revisions rules, setting up EPA’s anticipated release of the proposed rules. EPA has completed collection and 95% of the reporting of drinking water data on 29 PFAS under the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, with mixed findings of PFAS in municipal systems, and has proposed collecting drinking water data on additional PFAS in the next reporting period (2027–2031).

Litigation challenging the SDWA rule is ongoing. Petitioners have raised procedural and substantive objections, including challenges to EPA’s sequencing of regulatory determinations and its use of the hazard index. EPA has attempted to vacate or sever portions of the rule, but those efforts have been denied by the DC Circuit. At this time, the full rule remains in place despite EPA’s intentions to imminently jettison the mixture rule and other key elements.

This creates practical uncertainty. Water systems and other regulated entities must maintain preparations to comply with requirements that EPA may ultimately rescind or modify, while states continue to adopt their own standards in response.

TSCA REPORTING OBLIGATIONS REMAIN BROAD AS EPA REASSESSES SCOPE

The TSCA PFAS reporting rule requires entities that manufactured or imported PFAS, including PFAS-containing articles, for commercial purposes between 2011 and 2022 to report extensive information to EPA. The rule’s breadth has impacted many companies that were not previously subject to TSCA reporting, requiring collection of detailed historical data on uses, volumes, exposures, and hazards.

EPA has repeatedly extended reporting deadlines, most recently to January 31, 2027 (or 60 days after the effective date of the forthcoming final rule amending the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) Reporting Rule, whichever is earlier), reflecting both implementation challenges and anticipated revisions to the rule.[1] In November 2025, EPA proposed modifications that would introduce several exemptions, including for imported articles, concentrations of PFAS below certain threshold percentages, and certain byproducts and impurities. If finalized, these changes would significantly reduce the reporting burden on many companies.

Key elements of the rule are expected to remain unchanged, including the 2011–2022 lookback period and the scope of required information for covered PFAS. The obligation to report information that is known or reasonably ascertainable continues to require substantial diligence and documentation.

STATE LAWS INCREASINGLY TARGET PFAS IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS

State regulation of PFAS in consumer products continues to expand, with 16 states having enacted legislation addressing intentionally added PFAS, and more having proposed similar measures. These laws affect a wide range of product categories, including textiles, cookware, cosmetics, and packaging, among others, eventually covering all products in certain cases.

The resulting framework is highly fragmented. States differ in how they define “intentionally added” PFAS, how they treat product components, what exceptions are available, and when compliance obligations take effect. Differences between states such as Vermont and New Jersey illustrate how even broadly similar laws can diverge in key respects, including definitions, thresholds, and effective dates.

For companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, this patchwork creates significant compliance challenges, especially in supply chain management and product design.

LITIGATION IS EXPANDING

The scope of PFAS litigation continues to broaden. The multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving aqueous film-forming foam remains the most prominent proceeding, with more than 150,000 plaintiffs asserting claims including personal injury, natural resource damage, and drinking water contamination. Significant settlements have already been reached in certain categories of claims, while other cases continue to move forward.

New cases are emerging outside the MDL as well. One potential nationwide class action, focused on the alleged presence of PFAS in blood without allegations of further injury, raises questions about standing and the viability of exposure-only claims. Additionally, there has been a recent uptick in CERCLA-based claims, including new cost-recovery actions brought by municipal water providers and townships.

Consumer product litigation is also continuing. These cases often focus on labeling and marketing practices, alleging that companies failed to disclose the presence of PFAS or made misleading claims about product safety. While defendants have had some success at early stages, plaintiffs are refining their theories and proceeding to file new cases.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Federal PFAS regulation remains active but unsettled, with major rules under CERCLA and the SDWA subject to ongoing litigation and potential modification.
• EPA continues to extend compliance deadlines and revisit earlier rulemaking decisions, contributing to near-term uncertainty for regulated entities.
• TSCA reporting obligations remain expansive, though proposed exemptions may narrow the scope for many companies.
• State regulation is accelerating, specifically for consumer products, creating a patchwork of requirements across jurisdictions.
• PFAS litigation is expanding across multiple fronts, including environmental, personal injury, CERCLA cost recovery, and consumer protection claims.
• Companies face increasing exposure not only as manufacturers but also as downstream users, importers, and retailers.

WHAT LIES AHEAD

PFAS remain a central focus for regulators and litigants, but future regulation is unlikely to be defined by a single federal framework. Instead, the regulatory and enforcement environment will continue to reflect a combination of evolving federal rules, expanding state initiatives, and developing litigation theories.

For companies, this means compliance strategies must account for any overlapping or conflicting requirements while remaining adaptable. Monitoring federal rulemaking, tracking state developments, and assessing litigation risk across the supply chain are crucial as the PFAS landscape evolves.

Learn more about our Earth Day 2026 webinar series >>