JPML Creates New MDL for Non-AFFF Firefighter Turnout Gear Litigation

On August 18, 2026, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued a Transfer Order establishing MDL No. 3191—now formally titled In re: Non-AFFF Firefighter Turnout Gear Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The Order centralizes five actions from three federal districts in the District of Minnesota and assigns the litigation to Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan.

Link to What Is the Litigation About? What Is the Litigation About?

The consolidated cases arise from allegations that firefighter personal protective equipment—commonly known as “turnout gear,” which includes items such as self-contained breathing apparatuses, hoods, helmets, coats, pants, gloves, boots, and reflective tape—contains per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that are toxic and harmful to both firefighters and the environment. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased turnout gear containing PFAS and assert claims including negligence, strict products liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of state consumer protection laws on behalf of overlapping nationwide and state classes of purchasers.

Link to Why Did the JPML Centralize? Why Did the JPML Centralize?

The Panel found that the actions share common questions of fact and that centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings—particularly with respect to class certification—and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The Panel rejected arguments that centralization was premature, noting that, including potential tag-along actions, there are now eight putative class actions by turnout gear purchasers spread across five districts, brought by different plaintiffs’ counsel.

Link to Why Not the AFFF MDL? Why Not the AFFF MDL?

Several parties urged the Panel to transfer these actions into the existing AFFF MDL (MDL No. 2873), which is managed by Judge Richard M. Gergel in the District of South Carolina. The Panel declined, drawing a clear line: the AFFF MDL is limited to actions asserting claims for harm caused by AFFF manufacture, use, or disposal, and these turnout gear actions do not involve AFFF claims. The Panel emphasized that every turnout gear case previously transferred to the AFFF MDL also involved AFFF claims. It further noted that Judge Gergel is already managing more than 15,000 actions in the AFFF MDL, and adding a potentially large set of non-AFFF cases would increase complexity without justification.

Link to Why Minnesota? Why Minnesota?

The Panel selected the District of Minnesota because three of the five actions on the motion were already pending there, and 3M Company—one of the primary defendants—is headquartered in Minnesota. All defendants and most plaintiffs either suggested or agreed to Minnesota as the transferee district. The Panel described Judge Bryan as “an able and experienced jurist” and expressed confidence that he would “steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course.”