3M To Pay Over $7 Billion To Settle 'Forever Chemical' Groundwater Claims (apnews.com) 54
3M has agreed to pay up to $7.35 billion over nine years to settle claims from as many as 120,000 people who say they were sickened by PFAS-contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports and other locations where firefighting foam was used. The Associated Press reports that 3M "did not admit liability," noting that the settlement comes on top of the more than $10 billion the company previously agreed to pay U.S. public drinking water systems over PFAS contamination. From the report: 3M chairman William Brown called the settlement a "significant milestone" that substantially reduces uncertainty from the litigation. [...] Fred Thompson, an attorney with the Motley Rice law firm that helped negotiate the 3M settlement for the plaintiffs, called it welcome news for "the thousands of victims who have sought answers and accountability for nearly a decade." He said in a news release that the plaintiffs urgently need help covering mounting medical bills and other costs.
Under the terms of the settlement, the payouts will begin with $50 million this year, followed by yearly payments of more than $1 billion each year from 2028 to 2033. 3M could make additional payments if enough plaintiffs participate. If too few sign on, 3M has the option to cancel the settlement and continue fighting the lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, the payouts will begin with $50 million this year, followed by yearly payments of more than $1 billion each year from 2028 to 2033. 3M could make additional payments if enough plaintiffs participate. If too few sign on, 3M has the option to cancel the settlement and continue fighting the lawsuit.
No-Fault Punishment. (Score:4, Insightful)
Being legally compelled to pay out $7.5 billion, with a sticky note on every check that reads "did not admit liability”, is some crazy work.
Imagine if Luigi Mangione got every criminal charge dismissed, because he gave a $100 charitable donation. To the NRA.
Re:No-Fault Punishment. (Score:4, Informative)
That's civil court for you. Which is where Mangione is not standing trial.
Re: (Score:3)
Shouldn't this be in a criminal court? Its deliberate and wilful negligence leading to poisoning FFS.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Shouldn't this be in a criminal court?
Of course not.
The contamination happened many decades ago, and the people who made the decisions have long since retired and/or died.
Its deliberate and wilful negligence leading to poisoning FFS.
Please cite your proof beyond a reasonable doubt that specific named individuals were criminally negligent.
Keep the statute of limitations in mind, and remember that 3M wasn't spraying the foam.
Re:No-Fault Punishment. (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep the statute of limitations in mind, and remember that 3M wasn't spraying the foam.
Ah yes, the "Exxon" defense. Employed whenever someone wants to make excuses for willful corporate misdeeds.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet it remains a valid point. Just like we all know how fucking horrible burning fuel is for the world today, everyone continues to do it and blame anyone but themselves.
As for foam, I was a volunteer industrial firefighter. We used PFAS based foam because to this day it remains orders of magnitude more effective than any alternative at putting out certain types of fires, especially those associated with jet fuel. The PFAS free foam used these days SUUUUUCKS, especially when dealing with alcohol since A
Re: (Score:3)
Also keep in mind this was fire fighting foam. When the choice is die screaming in the fire right now or possibly die from the foams effects in 30 years the risk benefit ratio looks a lot different.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the foam was used in training exercises, not actual fires.
Military personnel sprayed most of the foam.
If we make suppliers criminally responsible for what soldiers do with their products, far fewer companies will be willing to sell to the military, and at much higher prices.
Re: (Score:1)
Also keep in mind this was fire fighting foam. When the choice is die screaming in the fire right now or possibly die from the foams effects in 30 years the risk benefit ratio looks a lot different.
Well, at least we’ll know what the “or else” marketing tactics will smell like when Soylent Green hits the shelves.
”Better than starving, right? Hey, you said Universal Basic Income. You never clarified the currency.”
Re: (Score:3)
The contamination happened many decades ago, and the people who made the decisions have long since retired and/or died.
I used to live in a neighborhood built over an abandoned army spy base. In the 50's and 60's, they used to burn huge piles of camera film and then the base fire department would practice by putting out the fire. With foam. All the nearby wells are contaminated. My family and I drank that stuff for a decade before anybody made that public.
There was also a photochemical "lagoon" somewhere on the base. God only knows what they were dumping in there.
Re: (Score:1)
I would imagine the developer, stopper, and fixer chemicals, and I doubt it was just a half-gallon of each.
That stuff is not exactly a good thing to swim in.
Re: (Score:1)
Shouldn't this be in a criminal court?
Of course not. Please cite your proof beyond a reasonable doubt..Keep the statute of limitations in mind..
Oh, we keep it in mind alright.
History makes it rather hard forget about the aforementioned loopholes Greed N.Corruption lobbied for, in order to ensure victims are legally compelled to “forget” about their wrongdoings.
Precedent, ensures the answer to criminal court is the same, regardless of the amount of harm.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: No-Fault Punishment. (Score:4)
Murder is by definition a crime, so it's almost a circular argument. The taking of a human life on the otherhand, war and self-defense complicate that view for some people.
Re: No-Fault Punishment. (Score:3)
Everyone recognizes that killing someone trying to kill you face to face is legitimate self defense.
Some people aren't smart enough to understand that applies to people killing you with paperwork as well, which is how we got here.
Re: No-Fault Punishment. (Score:2)
Defending others is, of course, acceptable. Otherwise the police should hand in their guns and fuck off, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No-Fault Punishment. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, great, but . . . (Score:3)
There's still the issue of soil and water remediation in the affected areas. Is 3M going to do anything about that?
Re: (Score:2)
And everywhere a fire truck uses foam!
Re:Okay, great, but . . . (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/blog... [fema.gov]
https://firestopperus.com/pfas... [firestopperus.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So only a mere 50 years of foams to clean up then. Each use equivalent to a major industrial spill. Airports in particular.
And every firefighting vehicle in the world has changed the foam already? All in just three years.
What a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Liability was not denied (Score:1)
Although 3M would like us to focus on the idea that they did not admit liability, they were also not able to deny liability. Just because it was not pursued to the fullest extent (which was a mistake) does not mean they are not responsible.
Cost of business (Score:2)
This sort of a scheme should never be allowed to happen. It's essentially buying your way out of trouble. If a company is guilty, the executive board should unconditionally be held personally responsible and serve time. Otherwise it just becomes the cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the statute of limitations for voluntary manslaughter is what, 30 years? So you can't punish all the responsible parties even on a good day.
Re:Cost of business (Score:4, Insightful)
Google on the history of firefighting foams.
Synthetic AFFF & Fluorinated Foams (1960s)
Invention: The U.S. Navy’s Naval Research Laboratory—working alongside 3M—developed Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) in the 1960s.
Mechanism: AFFF incorporated synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), specifically long-chain compounds like PFOS and PFOA. It dramatically lowered surface tension, allowing a thin, aqueous film to spread rapidly across liquid fuel, choke off oxygen, and prevent re-ignition.
The people who originally decided to use that foam are dead by now. Throwing them in jail will be difficult at best though the British did dig up Cromwell and hang the corpse, so there is a precedent.
Given that using the foam also saved lives from fires cleaning up the sites where it is a problem is really all you can ask for.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that using the foam also saved lives from fires cleaning up the sites where it is a problem is really all you can ask for.
AFFF and AR-AFFF are to this day unparalleled in their ability to fight many types of fires. The PFAS free alternatives FFF and AR-FFF just outright suck in comparison, especially the alcohol resistance ones. There's a reason the firefighting industry continued to use these foams long after it was clear they were an environmental catastrophe. Holding just the people who made it accountable would be asinine.
Re: (Score:3)
For some, this article hits different (Score:2)
me reads article with some passing interest, until my vision steps on the brakes
Motley Rice company
me for some reason puts on Halloween extended-wear pirate costume. Looks up past the sticky rice and jasmine rice items on Amazon
Yaaarrr! I'd best be headin out, lootin n pillagin for some of this here rice, I'd easily hand him me pieces of eight!
You going to see a lot of settlements right now (Score:2)
So you've got something here where the damage is likely in the trillions and they're going to hand out a few billion after making tens of billions in profit.
I don't think Democrats would hold them much more accountable but they probably would squeeze a few more rules and regulations out of them. It's like how Microsoft settled their antitrust under a Republican president.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Damage in the trillions offset by lives saved and burn injuries avoided or reduced. That's a tough calculation.
The mistake was assuming chemically inert was also biologically inert. That's happened more than once. The fire retardant they used to use in kids pajamas was another one, as was asbestos.
Re: (Score:2)
Damage in the trillions offset by lives saved and burn injuries avoided or reduced.
... which is offset by the 120,000+ now suffering due to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, both sides of the case agreed that the value of the damage caused was $7.35 billion, not trillions. That's what just happened.
Re: (Score:1)
You are partially correct, legislatures can change the statutes of limitations and change other things that can have impact on the court cases.
That's nice. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Had they sent people around with buckets of poison to throw on people, that would be a crime.
Re: (Score:3)
The question always is, at what point did they realize how biologically harmful these chemicals were? So far the evidence suggests it was very early on but the company covered it up for decades, even until recently. That is criminal behavior that should out at least some executives in prison.
A drop in the (contaminated) bucket. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the settlement of ONE suit of almost-countless others, to say nothing of what's pending and hasn't even been filed yet.
There's a very, very good reason that 3m shaved-off it's most-profitable medial bits (and cherry-picked employees) to Solventum a "completely not related to 3m now!" $15bn-ish company.
All that's left of "3M" is what they probably believe will convince the lawyers is the ramshackle shell of a tape business filled with functinaries that's largely lawsuit-bait. It's the biggest chunk of the company, certainly, but the businesses like tapes, post-its, etc are all commodities now with future-profit concerns due to the expiry of patents, etc. The stuff with "future $" potential has left the building (well, 'seceded' from the 3M campus, given they reside in the same buildings they did, just corporate frontier lines have been re-drawn)
Nasty stuff (Score:3)
I read the EPA web page on PFAS health risks [epa.gov]. They use the word "may" a lot. Therefore, I propose "3M may have to pay over $7 billion."
Re: (Score:2)
Any time you read "PFAS" and "health risks" know that you are probably dumber having read what you've read. PFAS is a large group of different substances, with different risks. Some are relatively benign, some are fucking nasty. One of those nastier ones is Perfluorooctanoic-Acid, which is an ingredient universally used in AFFF foam, doesn't break down, is a known Class-1 carcinogen, and known to cause liver and kidney damage. It's also one of the primary reasons why firefighters have about a 15-20% higher
Just ground water (Score:2)
PFAS contamination is confirmed to be widespread in the Great Lakes, where quite a lot of millions of people's drinking water comes from. Probably make 3M figure out how to clean up their messes instead of just paying off individuals and doing nothing.