New Hampshire Towns Sued Manufacturers Over PFAS Gear
Keene and Londonderry allege that 3M and DuPont gear poses cancer risks to fire personnel.
Updated on Sept. 29, 2026 in Philanthropy
Live Poll
Should chemical manufacturers be held liable for health risks linked to their protective gear?
The City of Keene and the Town of Londonderry have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against 3M and DuPont. The complaint claims the manufacturers knowingly utilized PFAS in firefighter protective equipment.
Why it matters
The litigation alleges that manufacturers failed to warn fire departments about toxic risks despite knowing PFAS components in gear degrade into harmful particles when exposed to high heat.
Two New Hampshire municipalities are challenging industry-standard gear components, marking a significant legal escalation against the two primary named defendants.
The players
3M
A multinational conglomerate specializing in industrial manufacturing, safety, and consumer goods.
DuPont
A global science and manufacturing company with significant operations in specialized materials and chemicals.
City of Keene
A municipal government entity in New Hampshire serving as a plaintiff in the litigation.
Town of Londonderry
A municipal government entity in New Hampshire serving as a plaintiff in the litigation.
The details
The suit claims PFAS were integrated into moisture barriers, protective fabrics, and water-repellent treatments in firefighter gear. Operators in fire services must now navigate a liability landscape where standard safety equipment is alleged to release toxic particles under high-heat conditions.
Timeline
September 29, 2026: The federal class-action lawsuit was reported.
Market Landscape
This litigation follows a pattern set by previous PFAS-related health and environmental liability cases. It reflects a broader shift in toxic tort litigation where municipal entities are aggressively challenging manufacturers over legacy chemical exposure.
Municipal departments and private security firms should audit their current equipment procurement contracts and safety documentation for PFAS content. Consult with legal counsel to assess potential liability exposure related to personnel health and equipment retirement timelines.
The takeaway
The case highlights the operational risk of relying on legacy materials that are increasingly subject to health litigation. Business leaders should monitor the court proceedings to determine if they need to adjust procurement standards for protective equipment.
Further reading
For more on industry accountability and public initiatives, visit our Philanthropy section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by The Cool Down.
Live Poll
Should chemical manufacturers be held liable for health risks linked to their protective gear?
