Canberra has fired a warning shot across the bow of American manufacturing giant 3M. The Australian government is suing the conglomerate over its role in producing ‘forever chemicals’ used in firefighting foam, a move that could shake up the global litigation landscape.
The claim, filed in the Federal Court, alleges that 3M knew about the health and environmental risks of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for decades but chose to conceal them. This is not a small-time punt. It is a coordinated strike by a sovereign state against one of the world’s most litigious corporations.
Behind the scenes, Whitehall sources are watching closely. The implications for the Ministry of Defence are significant. The UK military has been using similar foams at airfields and training centres for years. Contamination has already been found in groundwater near bases in Suffolk and North Yorkshire. If Canberra wins, the floodgates open. Lawyers in London are circling.
For 3M, this is a nightmare scenario. They have already settled with US states for billions. But an international claim from a Commonwealth ally carries different weight. It signals that no jurisdiction is safe. The Australian case is not just about money. It is about accountability. It is about piercing the corporate veil when profits are prioritised over public health.
The politics are toxic. The Lib Dems are sharpening their questions for DEFRA. Labour backbenchers are demanding a PFAS ban modelled on the EU. The government is caught between defending a company that supplies critical equipment and protecting constituents. This is a classic Whitehall two-step. Expect defensive briefings from the MoD about ongoing reviews.
But the real game here is precedent. This is the first major sovereign claim against a PFAS manufacturer outside the United States. If successful, it will trigger a domino effect across Europe and Asia. The Treasury is quietly modelling the potential liability. The sums are eye-watering.
For now, all eyes are on the Australian court. The case will take years, but the damage to 3M’s reputation is immediate. In the Lobby, the question is not if the UK will follow suit, but when. And who will blink first in the cabinet over the cost-benefit analysis of a domestic lawsuit.
One thing is certain: the game has changed. ‘Forever chemicals’ are now a forever headache for 3M. And in the corridors of power, the phone lines are buzzing.
