PFAS (Per-and poly fluoroalkyl substances), nicknamed ‘forever chemicals’ are comprised of more than 14000 synthetic chemicals. Usage extends from non-stick cookware to firefighting, foam, food packaging, clothing, toilet paper, waterproof cosmetics, and numerous kinds of industrial and domestic products.
What is the impact of these chemicals on the environment and the health impacts on humans? World-wide attention is now on the effect of these chemicals on the immune system and the potential link to various cancers and organ damage.
Key takeaways
- Stricter PFAS rules ahead: the Australian Federal Government select committee inquiry recommends a national watchdog and uniform drinking water standards.
- Rising product liability risk: future claims may target PFAS in consumer goods if health links are proven.
- Insurance uncertainty: coverage disputes are likely as exclusions and historical limits complicate PFAS claims.
What has happened to date?
To date, Australia’s efforts have been focussed on land contamination issues, primarily those arising from the impact of firefighting chemicals. In 2024, the Australian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a clean-up direction to 3M (the subsidiary of a global manufacturer) after detecting forever chemicals at a former foam testing site.
In June 2023, a class action on behalf of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community relating to PFAS land contamination, was settled for AUD22 million. The settlement addressed damages for the diminution of property values, and interference with use and enjoyment of the land including impacts on traditional community practices. Notably, that claim excluded any damages for personal injury. (Wreck Bay Aboriginal Council V Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2023] FCA 811).
Future focus on PFAS Regulation
On 20 November 2025, the Australian Federal Government select committee inquiry on PFAS handed down 47 recommendations aimed at strengthening the regulation of these chemicals in Australia. Among other recommendations, the Government is to consider establishing a national PFAS watchdog and creating a national PFAS monitoring program. This inquiry is widely regarded as a turning point, raising awareness within the federal government and the broader community about the presence and potential effects of forever chemicals, not only on the land but also in the products we consume.
In May 2025, Yale University reported that by some estimates, 90% of the drinking water in the US contains PFAS (Yale University of Sustainability 2025 203.436.3571). Globally, many countries are enacting or considering regulations to limit PFAS levels in drinking water. The PFAS select committee has now recommended the development of standardised drinking water guidelines across all Australian States and Territories.
PFAS controls in consumer products
During the PFAS select committee inquiry, evidence was given by the leading plaintiff firm that prosecuted the Wreck Bay class action. The firm advised the senate committee that damages for personal injury were specifically excluded from the class action due to the current lack of science-based causation. If future scientific evidence establishes a causation link to disease, whether by land contamination or by products, consumer product liability claims are likely to follow.
The current protections under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) are focused on misleading and deceptive product claims (such as claims about products being “non-toxic” or “eco-friendly” or “PFAS-free”). The ACL also allows consumers to recover loss and damages from manufacturers (including importers) of goods with “safety defects” (that is, the product’s safety falls below what consumers are generally entitled to expect).
One of the select committee’s recommendations is for consultation between relevant government departments to develop mandatory product labelling. The ACCC does not presently test or monitor PFAS in products, but this may change with the introduction of mandatory standards. The committee was particularly concerned about personal care products such as cosmetics and period products, and imported goods that may contain PFAS. The committee has recommended a ban on PFAS in personal care products.
Insurance implications
Personal injury or property damage claims may be covered under general liability or products liability policies. However, PFAs contamination may span several years, raising complex questions under these occurrence policies, such as which policy responds, or whether there has been an “occurrence”. Given PFAS has been prolific for many decades, it is possible that insurers may no longer be in operation and settlements could far exceed historical policy limits.
Unless an environmental liability policy is held, some claims may be excluded under a “pollutions” exclusion. The policies are also likely to exclude civil penalties and may not respond to any agreement to conduct investigations or perform rectifications, an issue that has featured prominently in the US experience.
Any claims for injuries will have to overcome the burden of proof regarding causation. In the case of exposure to asbestos and silica, for example, injuries are unlikely to manifest for some time. Asbestos exclusions have been standard for many years, and insurers are increasingly excluding silica-related claims. Only time will tell how PFAS claims will evolve in Australia and how insurers will respond.
Further information
This article was written by Principal Lawyer, Jacinta Long and Special Counsel, Sarah Yau.
Jacinta and Sarah are defence and coverage experts in product liability and recall.
For further information about forever chemicals, or for a health check review of PFAS implications for your business, please contact Jacinta Long and Sarah Yau.
Meet our Team
View our Insights