Australia’s $1.4 Billion PFAS Lawsuit Against 3M, What Happened at 28 Defense Bases Commonwealth of Australia v. 3M Company and 3M Australia Pty Ltd, Federal Court of Australia

Australia is suing U.S. conglomerate 3M for more than 2 billion Australian dollars ($1.4 billion) over so-called “forever chemical” contamination from firefighting foam at defense bases — the government’s largest-ever claim for compensation, relating to contamination with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, at 28 bases. The Commonwealth filed the case in the Federal Court of Australia on May 28, 2026 against Minnesota-based 3M Company and its subsidiary 3M Australia Pty Ltd. No settlement has been reached. This is an extraordinary government-to-corporation lawsuit — not a consumer class action — and it represents a turning point in how nations hold chemical manufacturers accountable for contamination they allegedly knew about for decades.

Australia 3M PFAS Lawsuit — Key Facts

Field	Detail
Lawsuit Filed	May 28, 2026
Plaintiff	Commonwealth of Australia
Defendants	3M Company (Minnesota, USA) and 3M Australia Pty Ltd
Alleged Harm	PFAS contamination from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) at 28 Australian Defence Force bases; 3M allegedly withheld its own environmental test results showing significant adverse environmental effects
Damages Sought	More than AU$2 billion ($1.4 billion USD)
Specific Harm Type	Environmental contamination; toxic exposure; property damage; cultural and community harm; past and future remediation costs
Number of Bases Affected	28 Defence Force bases across Australia
Court	Federal Court of Australia
Settlement Status	No settlement reached
Defence Dept. Cleanup Costs Already Spent	AU$1.3 billion ($920 million USD)
Community Settlements Already Paid	AU$408 million to affected communities
Last Updated	May 28, 2026

Who Is 3M and Why Is Australia Taking Them to Court Over Firefighting Foam?

3M Company is a Minnesota-based industrial conglomerate and one of the world’s largest manufacturers of chemical and consumer products. For decades, 3M produced a firefighting foam called aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, which contained PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — that made the foam highly effective against fuel fires. The aqueous film-forming foams have been slowly phased out of use in Australia since 2003, but were used for more than three decades since the 1970s.

Internal company documents released through Minnesota’s lawsuit against 3M revealed that the manufacturer knew by the 1970s that PFOA and PFOS were toxic and accumulating in people’s blood, with company meeting minutes from 1978 stating these chemicals “should be regarded as toxic.” By the early 1960s, 3M knew PFAS chemicals didn’t degrade in the environment, and by 1976, the company discovered these chemicals were in plant workers’ blood at higher levels than normal.

The Australian government argues it relied on 3M’s representations about the foam’s safety. The federal government is alleging the company withheld the results of its own environmental laboratory testing that showed there were significant adverse environmental effects associated with its PFAS products. To understand how 3M’s decades of internal knowledge about PFAS toxicity became central to litigation worldwide, see our detailed breakdown in how 3M’s own internal documents from the 1970s showed the company knew PFAS was toxic — detailed in our AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit coverage.

What Did the PFAS Foam Actually Do to Australian Defence Bases and Nearby Communities?

PFAS does not break down in soil, water, or the human body — which is why it earned the name “forever chemicals.” Once it enters groundwater, it spreads. Once it enters a person’s bloodstream, it stays.

The Australian Defense Department warned residents near its Richmond Air Base outside Sydney in 2018 to reduce their consumption of locally produced fish and eggs, after PFAS was found in nearby groundwater. Richmond is one of seven bases with PFAS-impacted sites in New South Wales alone.

Research has linked exposure to PFAS to health issues including liver damage, lower birth weight, and testicular cancer.

Australia’s Defence Department has already spent AU$1.3 billion dealing with the impacts of the contamination, including paying AU$408 million in legal settlements to affected communities. The department has also treated or removed more than 200,000 metric tons of contaminated soil and treated more than 13 billion litres of water.

Related article: Beacon Mutual Insurance Data Breach Lawsuit, Did the January 2026 Ransomware Attack Expose Your Personal Information? DiMeo v. The Beacon Mutual Insurance Company and Malloy v. The Beacon Mutual Insurance Company

The scale of cleanup already undertaken — before this lawsuit has even been decided — illustrates why Australia is now seeking to recover those costs directly from the company it holds responsible. The reach of PFAS contamination is not limited to Australia. 3M produced about 70% of PFOA and PFOS used historically in the United States, and the chemicals stopped being made in the early 2000s, but decades of use in firefighting foam and other products led to widespread contamination of drinking water sources. The same chemicals showing up in groundwater near Sydney and Katherine, Northern Territory, have contaminated water systems across the United States and Europe. For context on how PFAS exposure is now being linked to everyday consumer products as well, see our coverage of how PFAS exposure claims are also spreading into consumer products in our Apple Watch Band forever chemicals lawsuit coverage.

If you live near any of the 28 affected Australian Defence Force bases, or if you were a worker, resident, or serviceperson exposed to PFAS-contaminated groundwater or soil from these sites, this case is directly relevant to your community and potentially your health.

What Exactly Does Australia Say 3M Did Wrong?

The Commonwealth’s case includes allegations that 3M withheld a range of information and misrepresented the effects of 3M’s aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland accused 3M of withholding information about environmental risks the foam posed. The core legal argument is that 3M knew its foam was leaving toxic, permanent contamination in the environment, told nobody, and kept selling it. The Australian government used that foam at its own bases for decades in good faith — and has spent over AU$1.3 billion dealing with the aftermath.

In May 2000, 3M announced it was phasing out the foam and U.S. authorities warned the Australian government on the same day that the foam’s key chemical ingredients “potentially pose a risk to human health.” Documents show Australia’s Department of Defence did not fully replace the 3M foam until July 2012. That twelve-year gap — between the U.S. warning and full replacement — is part of why the cleanup costs have been so enormous.

3M, for its part, pushed back immediately. “3M has never manufactured PFAS in Australia and ceased sales of the products at issue in Australia around two decades ago,” 3M said in a statement. “Despite this, the Department of Defense continued to use PFAS-containing firefighting foams for nearly two decades longer.” That defense — that the government kept using the foam well after 3M stopped selling it — is likely to be central to how 3M litigates this case.

What Communities and Bases Are at the Center of This Lawsuit?

In 2023, the federal government settled a class action over PFAS contamination from firefighting foam at seven Defence sites across the country, paying out AU$132 million to about 30,000 claimants who alleged they were exposed to chemicals that leached into groundwater around the military bases. That settlement followed an earlier AU$212 million payout for property value loss and distress in the communities of Katherine in the Northern Territory, Oakey in Queensland, and Williamtown in New South Wales.

Those prior settlements — paid by the Australian government to its own citizens — are part of what the government now wants to recover from 3M. The current AU$2 billion lawsuit covers 28 Defence bases and is explicitly aimed at recouping past cleanup and compensation costs, plus future remediation expenses that are still ongoing.

Residents Near Australian Defence Bases — What Does This Mean for You?

If you live near any of the 28 Defence bases included in this lawsuit, or near any of the previously settled sites — including Katherine (NT), Oakey (QLD), Williamtown (NSW), or Richmond Air Base (NSW) — this case matters to you. The government’s lawsuit targets 3M directly for the costs it has borne. It does not create an immediate compensation claim process for individuals. However, if you believe you or your family suffered health impacts or property loss from PFAS contamination at a Defence site that was not covered by prior settlements, speaking with an environmental damage attorney is a meaningful step.

What Are Australia and Its Affected Communities Asking the Court to Award?

This is a government plaintiff seeking to recover costs already spent and costs still to come — it is not a consumer class action seeking per-person payouts.

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland told reporters the Commonwealth is seeking “more than AU$2 billion in damages to recover significant past and future expenses incurred in investigating and managing contamination resulting from the historic storage and use of this foam.”

Assistant Defense Minister Peter Khalil described this as “the most significant legal action undertaken by Commonwealth and Defence in living memory,” saying the government is “taking on 3M on behalf of the Australian people and the Australians that are affected.”

What Could This Case Mean for Individual Australians Affected by PFAS Contamination?

No money flows directly to individuals from this government lawsuit. The Commonwealth is suing to recover what it has already spent and what it expects to spend — not to create a new compensation fund for residents. However, the legal record built through this case — particularly any court findings about what 3M knew and when — could strengthen future private claims by individuals, communities, or state governments affected by PFAS from Defence bases not already covered by prior settlements. Speaking with an environmental damage attorney about your individual situation is the appropriate step if you believe you have an unresolved claim.

What Should Australians Near Affected Defence Bases Do Right Now?

1. Know whether your base is included. The lawsuit covers 28 Defence Force bases. Prior settlements covered Katherine (NT), Oakey (QLD), Williamtown (NSW), and seven other sites. If your community was part of a prior settlement, that compensation has already been distributed. If you believe you have a new or additional claim not covered by those settlements, document it now.
   
2. Save health and property records. Anyone who has lived near a Defence base with known PFAS contamination should retain medical records, property valuations, water test results, and any notices or letters received from Defence or state environmental agencies.
   
3. Track the docket. This case is filed in the Federal Court of Australia. Major court decisions — including any settlement announcement — will appear on the Federal Court’s public docket.
   
4. Follow official government updates. The Australian Attorney-General’s office and the Department of Defence are the primary sources for accurate case updates. Do not rely on social media for official court developments.
   
5. Consider individual legal advice. If you believe you have health injuries, property damage, or community harm from PFAS at a Defence base not yet compensated, consult an environmental damage attorney. The government’s case is about recovering national costs — it does not replace individual claims.
   
6. Monitor for 3M’s response. 3M’s immediate public statement deflects responsibility to the Australian government for continuing to use the foam after 3M stopped selling it. How courts weigh that shared-responsibility argument will shape the trajectory of this case significantly.

Australia vs. 3M PFAS Lawsuit — Timeline

Milestone	Date
3M begins supplying AFFF firefighting foam to Australian Defence Force	1970s
Internal 3M documents show company knew PFAS should be “regarded as toxic”	1978
U.S. authorities warn Australian government that AFFF’s key chemical ingredients “potentially pose a risk to human health” — same day 3M announces phase-out	May 2000
Australian Defence Force fully replaces 3M foam	July 2012
PFAS contamination found in groundwater near Richmond Air Base, Sydney — residents warned to reduce locally produced fish and egg consumption	2018
Australian government pays AU$212.5 million to communities of Katherine (NT), Oakey (QLD), and Williamtown (NSW) for property value loss and distress	2020
Australian government pays AU$132 million to approximately 30,000 claimants near seven Defence sites	2023
3M reaches U.S. settlement agreement of up to $10.3 billion with U.S. public water systems to resolve PFAS contamination claims	June 2023
Australian Senate inquiry recommends government pursue legal action against 3M to fund site remediation	Late 2025
Commonwealth files AU$2 billion ($1.4 billion USD) lawsuit against 3M Company and 3M Australia Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia	May 28, 2026
Expected resolution	TBD — complex government litigation; no timeline set

Australia’s $1.4 Billion PFAS Lawsuit Against 3M — Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Australia suing 3M specifically, and not other PFAS manufacturers? 

The Commonwealth’s lawsuit targets 3M Company and its subsidiary 3M Australia because they supplied the aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used at the 28 Defence bases at the center of this case. The government alleges 3M withheld its own test results showing significant adverse environmental effects — meaning 3M supplied the product and concealed what it knew about the harm. Other manufacturers may face separate actions, but this lawsuit is focused on 3M’s foam and 3M’s alleged conduct.

What is PFAS and why is it called a “forever chemical”?

 PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — a family of thousands of human-made chemicals used in firefighting foam, non-stick cookware, water-resistant clothing, and many industrial processes. They are called “forever chemicals” because their chemical bonds are extremely strong and do not break down naturally in the environment or in the human body. They accumulate in soil, groundwater, and human tissue over time. Research has linked PFAS exposure to liver damage, lower birth weight, certain cancers including testicular cancer, and immune system problems.

Does this lawsuit mean affected Australians will receive compensation directly?

 No — not from this case. The Commonwealth is suing to recover costs it has already spent on cleanup and community compensation, and costs it expects to incur in the future. It is not creating a new individual compensation fund. Australians who believe they have personal injury or property claims not covered by prior settlements should consult an environmental damage attorney separately.

Has 3M ever paid for PFAS contamination before?

Yes — significantly. Under the terms of a 2023 U.S. settlement, 3M agreed to contribute up to a present value of $10.3 billion, payable over 13 years, to resolve claims by public water systems nationwide. That settlement covered U.S. drinking water contamination only. Australia’s new lawsuit is a separate action, filed in Australian court, covering Defence base contamination in Australia.

What is 3M’s defense?

 3M’s immediate public response placed shared responsibility on the Australian government itself. The company stated it never manufactured PFAS in Australia and ceased selling the products at issue roughly two decades ago, while noting the Defence Department continued using PFAS-containing foams for nearly two decades after that. Whether that argument succeeds will depend on what the court determines about 3M’s obligations to disclose known risks to government buyers.

Is this the largest lawsuit ever filed by the Australian government?

 Yes. The claim against Minnesota-based 3M Company and its subsidiary is the largest ever brought by Australia. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland described it as a case that reflects the environmental, economic, and cultural costs of decades of contamination.

Could this case lead to more lawsuits against other PFAS manufacturers in Australia?

 Potentially. A Senate inquiry into the extent, regulation, and management of PFAS in Australia made 47 recommendations, including that the federal government should pursue legal action against 3M and other manufacturers to fund site remediation. The government acted on the 3M recommendation with this filing. Whether additional manufacturers face similar claims will depend in part on how this case unfolds.

Sources Used in This Australia vs. 3M PFAS Lawsuit Article

• Australian Department of Defence — Legal proceedings against 3M Company and 3M Australia Pty Ltd (official media release), May 28, 2026: https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2026-05-28/legal-proceedings-against-3m-company-3m-australia-pty-ltd

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against the Australian Department of Defence official media release (May 28, 2026), Associated Press reporting, Reuters reporting, and 3M Company SEC filings. Last Updated: May 28, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.