Local Government Files Negligent Misrepresentation Against AFFF Foam Distributors

Legal action is being taken by several cities and counties alleging AFFF distributors neglected to alert them about the long-term hazards of the foam

Thursday, April 10, 2025 - Accusing distributors of AFFF firefighting foam of careless misrepresentation, several municipal governments around the nation are suing them. The claims contend that these distributors minimized or completely disregarded the hazards related to the harmful components of the foam, especially PFAS compounds, which have been linked to major environmental and medical problems. Many counties and cities claim they sold this foam under the belief it was safe and efficient without warning of the long-lasting contamination it could produce. Like an AFFF lawyer defending clients in an AFFF cancer lawsuit, many local agencies argue they were deceived and are now left with expensive repercussions. Among the responsibilities local governments now face--often without the money or resources to handle--are contaminated water supplies, environmental cleanup, and health monitoring.

The claims assert that cities would have bought differently if the distributors had been truthful about the hazards. For decades, instead, fire departments employed AFFF--particularly in training drills and emergency fuel fires--unknowingly enabling harmful chemicals to contaminate the ground and water. These municipal governments are left cleaning the mess now that the hazards of PFAS are more generally acknowledged. They want responsibility as much as pay. They want the businesses who made money off of these goods to own their part in the poisoning. The litigation documents show that certain distributors marketed the foam as benign while having access to research and internal warnings regarding the hazards of PFAS. The complaints also contend that municipal employees and neighborhoods were left totally in the dark about the hazards. Residents near military bases, airports, and fire stations are just now learning about the possible risks of long-term PFAS exposure. Drinking water has previously shown positive for PFAS levels much above what is deemed acceptable in some areas, which has generated indignation and calls for action. Though they could take years to settle, these cases show a growing movement among local governments against businesses they claim put profit over public safety. These legal efforts could provide the ground for future control and changes in how dangerous products are supplied to public agencies as the cleaning expenses mount into the millions and more people learn about the problem.

Local governments alleging they were misled over the safety of the product are suing AFFF foam distributors for negligent misrepresentation. These lawsuits follow the tactics utilized in other AFFF cancer litigation, whereby legal teams contend that important health hazards were omitted. The cities and counties engaged claim they were sold a hazardous substance without enough warning, resulting in tainted water, health issues, and costly clean-ups. These lawsuits seek to recoup losses and advocate more open policies by making distributors answerable. This court fight could influence the future handling of environmental hazards as additional towns find PFAS exposure.

Information provided by AFFFLawsuitCenter.com, a website devoted to providing news about AFFF and PFAS cancer, lymphoma and leukaemia claims, including a free no-cost, no-obligation AFFF Lawsuit Claim.