The 3M Company’s $12 billion class action settlement with public water supply companies has been back in the spotlight following the initial announcement in June 2023. The settlement initially faced scrutiny due to terms concerning indemnity obligations, causing concerns among several state governments. These provisions mandated public water suppliers to indemnify 3M against claims made by third parties, including toxic tort plaintiffs. In a decisive backlash, attorney generals from 23 states filed a case against these provisions.
As reported on JD Supra, the controversy surrounding the agreement involved the manufacturer’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), a group of man-made chemicals that have been used in many industries since the 1940s. PFAS have been linked to several health issues, causing significant concern among communities and regulatory bodies alike.
By July, a strong response from the state governments led to the questioning and reconsideration of the indemnity provisions in the settlement. What this means for the 3M company, public water suppliers, and the communities affected by the chemical pollution remains a significant point of discussion in legal circles moving forward.
While the specifics of any changes to the settlement have not yet been publicly released, the recent developments indicate that the indemnity obligations are being reconsidered. This adds another layer of complexity to a settlement that has already proven to be highly contentious and could have far-reaching implications.