Australia has launched its biggest-ever lawsuit against 3M, accusing the American conglomerate of contaminating defence sites with so-called “forever chemicals” in firefighting foam, according to the BBC and The Independent. The case is reportedly valued at A$2 billion and centres on pollution linked to products used at military locations.
The government says the case concerns PFAS chemicals, which do not break down easily in the environment and have been found in soil and water around defence bases. According to the BBC, the claim is the largest ever brought by Australia’s government, while The Independent reported that the action seeks to hold 3M responsible for contamination tied to firefighting foam used at those sites.
PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, have become a major environmental and legal issue in several countries because they persist for years and can spread through groundwater. The Australian case adds to a growing wave of litigation targeting manufacturers that sold PFAS-containing products, particularly aqueous film-forming foam used to fight fuel fires at airports and military facilities.
The lawsuit matters not only because of its size, but because it could influence how governments pursue cleanup costs from companies linked to long-term pollution. Defence sites are especially significant because contamination there can affect surrounding communities, water supplies, and land use, making remediation both costly and complex.
According to the BBC, the action is being taken by Australia’s government, marking a major escalation in its response to PFAS contamination. The Independent likewise described it as the largest-ever lawsuit brought by the Australian government, underscoring the scale of the alleged environmental harm and the financial stakes involved.
What happens next will depend on the court process and whether 3M contests the claims or seeks a settlement. For now, the case puts one of the world’s best-known industrial companies at the centre of Australia’s effort to recover the cost of dealing with “forever chemicals” contamination.
