A new federal multidistrict litigation is beginning to take shape around allegations involving PFAS in firefighter turnout gear.
On August 18, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 3191, In re: Non-AFFF Firefighter Turnout Gear Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, transferring five actions from three federal districts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The litigation has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan.
By the JPML’s September 1 report, the newly created MDL had grown to eight pending actions. That is still a very small docket compared with mature mass torts, but its creation gives plaintiff firms a new litigation to watch as the court begins establishing its structure.
The more important question at this stage is not how large the litigation is today. It is what happens next.
What Is Firefighter Turnout Gear Litigation About?
Turnout gear is the protective equipment firefighters wear during emergency response, including coats, pants and other components designed to provide protection against heat, moisture and hazardous environments.
The cases consolidated in MDL No. 3191 involve allegations that PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, were used in materials associated with firefighter turnout gear, including moisture barriers and water-resistant treatments. Plaintiffs allege that manufacturers and suppliers failed to adequately disclose or warn about the presence and potential risks of those chemicals.
PFAS have become the subject of extensive litigation across several industries and products. But the new turnout gear proceeding is important because the JPML chose to treat these cases separately from the much larger litigation involving aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF.
That distinction matters.
This Is Not the AFFF MDL
Firefighter PFAS litigation can easily become confusing because firefighters may encounter PFAS through different products and circumstances.
The existing AFFF litigation, MDL No. 2873, focuses on claims associated with firefighting foam. The new MDL is specifically titled the Non-AFFF Firefighter Turnout Gear litigation.
The JPML previously resisted expanding the AFFF MDL to absorb turnout-gear-only claims. When it created MDL No. 3191 in August, it instead established a separate coordinated proceeding in Minnesota.
For firms evaluating the developing litigation, that separation is significant. A PFAS-related firefighter inquiry does not necessarily fit into a single litigation simply because PFAS exposure is alleged. The source of exposure, product involved, plaintiff type and nature of the claimed loss can materially change which proceeding may be relevant.
The Current Cases Are More Narrowly Defined Than the Headline May Suggest
This is also where firms should be careful when evaluating the new MDL.
The actions initially transferred into MDL No. 3191 are primarily proposed class actions brought by municipalities, counties and fire protection entities that purchased turnout gear. Their claims include alleged economic losses associated with purchasing and replacing the products, along with product-liability, consumer-protection and related theories.
That means the current MDL should not automatically be described as an established personal-injury mass tort for individual firefighters.
There are other lawsuits involving firefighters and alleged PFAS exposure, but the structure of MDL No. 3191 is still developing. As of early September, there was no publicly established master complaint, plaintiff fact sheet or bellwether process for individual firefighter personal-injury claims.
For plaintiff firms, that distinction is particularly important.
Early litigation can generate significant attention before the actual claimant framework becomes clear. Treating every emerging MDL like a mature acquisition opportunity can lead firms to build intake criteria around assumptions that the court has not yet established.
Why Centralization Still Matters
Although the docket remains small, MDL formation is an important procedural milestone.
Multidistrict litigation allows federal cases involving common factual questions to be coordinated before one judge for pretrial proceedings. That can create greater consistency in discovery, motion practice and case management while reducing duplication across separate courts.
For turnout gear litigation, centralization also creates a more visible framework for watching how the cases develop.
Judge Bryan will now have the opportunity to address issues such as leadership, pleading structure, discovery and the overall organization of the proceeding. Those early orders may provide a much clearer picture of the scope of the litigation than case counts alone.
There has already been meaningful activity in related turnout-gear litigation. In July, a federal court in Montana denied motions to dismiss claims brought by governmental purchasers, allowing that action to continue before its transfer into the new MDL structure.
That does not determine the ultimate outcome of the litigation, but it adds another procedural development worth monitoring as MDL No. 3191 gets underway.
What Plaintiff Firms Should Watch Next
At this stage, the most useful intelligence may come from the court docket rather than the raw number of cases.
Several developments could help clarify where the litigation is headed.
Early case-management orders. These will begin defining how the MDL operates and what issues the court intends to address first.
Plaintiff leadership. Leadership appointments can provide another indication that the proceeding is moving from centralization into more organized litigation.
A master complaint or standardized pleadings. These documents may provide greater clarity around the theories of liability and categories of plaintiffs being pursued.
The treatment of individual firefighter claims. This may be one of the most important issues for firms watching the litigation. The initial centralized cases should not be treated as evidence that broad individual personal-injury criteria have already been established.
Product and exposure distinctions. Firms will also need to distinguish turnout gear allegations from AFFF exposure and potentially from other PFAS-related pathways.
Scientific and causation issues. If personal-injury claims become a larger part of the litigation, questions surrounding exposure, disease-specific causation and supporting evidence could become increasingly important.
Early Does Not Necessarily Mean Ready to Scale
Emerging litigations often attract attention because firms want to identify opportunities before competition increases.
But there is an important difference between identifying a litigation early and deciding that it is ready for significant client-acquisition investment.
MDL No. 3191 is a good example.
Centralization makes the litigation more important to monitor, but many of the questions that would typically influence a plaintiff firm’s acquisition strategy remain unresolved.
For firms evaluating emerging litigation, useful questions include:
- Who are the plaintiffs currently bringing the claims?
- What products and manufacturers are actually at issue?
- What injuries or economic losses are recognized in the pleadings?
- What evidence may eventually be necessary to establish exposure?
- Are individual personal-injury claims becoming part of the coordinated proceeding?
- Has the court established standardized claim information or other meaningful qualification guidance?
- Is litigation activity supporting broader investment, or is the market still largely speculative?
Those questions can be more valuable than simply asking how many cases have been filed.
The Bigger Picture for Plaintiff Firms
Firefighter turnout gear litigation illustrates something plaintiff firms encounter repeatedly in emerging mass torts: the earliest headline is rarely the complete market picture.
A new MDL can be an important signal. It establishes coordination, creates a central docket and gives firms a clearer place to monitor procedural progress.
But centralization alone does not answer questions about claimant qualification, causation, litigation economics or the appropriate timing for client acquisition.
For MDL No. 3191, the next several months may be more informative than the current case count.
The firms that follow those developments closely will be better positioned to distinguish between a litigation that is simply receiving attention and one that is developing the structure necessary to support a broader plaintiff strategy.
SmashOrbit Legal
At SmashOrbit Legal, we help plaintiff firms evaluate developing litigation through market intelligence, acquisition strategy, campaign execution and legal intake.
As emerging opportunities develop, the goal is not simply to enter a market early. It is to understand when the underlying litigation, qualification criteria and acquisition environment support doing so strategically.
Evaluating Your Next Growth Opportunity?
Whether you’re exploring an emerging litigation or looking to strengthen an existing campaign, SmashOrbit Legal helps plaintiff firms build smarter acquisition strategies around their goals.