Data and Legal Tech are the Backbone of PFAS Litigation

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have earned the nickname “forever chemicals” because they linger in soil, in water, and in the human body. But what has propelled PFAS into one of the most consequential environmental litigations in US history isn’t merely their persistence. It’s the growing ability of scientists, analysts, and legal practitioners to detect, map, and connect these contaminants to harm.

The earliest PFAS cases against manufacturers such as DuPont brought previously hidden data to light and catalyzed public awareness. For the first time, communities understood that chemicals used in industrial processes had seeped into drinking water sources, accumulating silently for years. Those early breakthroughs laid the groundwork for what eventually became the massive AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) MDL, involving decades of firefighting foam use at military bases, fire stations, and airports nationwide.

Nationwide monitoring programs, improved lab instruments, and the availability of public environmental data allowed attorneys to quantify contamination with precision. Geospatial technology made it possible to visualize the movement of PFAS plumes through groundwater, translating scientific findings into legal narratives. 

Technology as the Engine of Modern PFAS Litigation

The PFAS MDL is widely viewed as a watershed moment in toxic torts. Its size and complexity have required courts and law firms to rethink how environmental cases are investigated and proven.

Technology has powered this in two important ways. First, modern data analysis tools have allowed researchers, analysts, and legal teams to identify contamination hotspots by using publicly available environmental data. This capability helped reveal the scope of PFAS contamination long before many communities understood the risks in their water systems. Second, large-scale platforms and digital infrastructure have enabled the legal system to manage the enormous volume of documents, scientific reports, and claimant data generated in the MDL.

The Systems That Made Large-Scale PFAS Litigation Possible

Various legal tech and AI-based technologies transformed overwhelming volumes of technical material into clear, actionable evidence that supported both liability and damages. For example, advanced eDiscovery platforms allowed teams to organize and review millions of documents, while centralized databases ensured that data from thousands of claimants could be collected and analyzed in a consistent way. GIS modeling then added a spatial dimension by mapping how contamination moved from specific facilities into surrounding communities. 

The Causation Puzzle and How Data Solves It

Proving causation is the central challenge in any toxic tort, and PFAS is no exception. Establishing that a specific chemical from a particular source caused a plaintiff’s injury requires a multilayered analysis.

Litigators today approach PFAS cases by building a layered factual model. They begin by identifying where contamination exists and which water systems or zip codes were affected. Next, they examine residence histories or occupational exposure patterns to understand who was likely exposed, for how long, and at what intensity. Medical records and epidemiological research add another layer, tying specific injuries to plausible exposure pathways. Finally, environmental engineering and source attribution methods help distinguish among multiple potential polluters.

This synthesis of environmental science, big data, and legal analysis has truly revolutionized what is possible regarding toxic torts. It allows practitioners not only to reconstruct exposure histories with far greater accuracy but also to differentiate between injuries caused by PFAS and those that may stem from unrelated circumstances, an essential distinction in a field where plaintiffs often experience overlapping risk factors.

Where Environmental Contamination Litigation is Heading 

PFAS continues to be an important area of litigation, but the trajectory is shifting. The AFFF MDL, which has drawn national attention for years, is expected to move toward resolution as courts await decisions on the personal injury bellwethers. Although we anticipate some localized PFAS cases, particularly involving contamination from manufacturing sites or waste facilities that are unrelated to the AFFF MDL, there is no clear indication that PFAS litigation will expand into another nationwide surge.

This broader trend is not limited to PFAS. At recent legal conferences, practitioners have highlighted a set of emerging contaminants such as 1,4-dioxane, PCE, and TCE, where scientific consensus is strengthening and regulatory exposure limits continue to evolve. 

The frameworks developed through PFAS litigation now offer a blueprint for how future environmental cases may progress, based on extensive monitoring, strong scientific foundations, and the use of sophisticated technology to guide discovery, exposure modeling, and case strategy.

Using Legal Intelligence to Detect Violations Earlier

One of the most powerful shifts in toxic tort litigation is the emergence of tools capable of identifying environmental risks before they escalate into widespread harm. Legal technologists can now combine emissions data, monitoring results, scientific modeling, and topographic analysis to detect hotspots and contamination plumes long before the public becomes aware of them.

Traditionally, toxic torts have been reactive: a community suffers, data emerges, and litigation follows. Today, litigators can operate proactively by discovering contamination earlier, notifying affected communities, and intervening before exposure intensifies. In many instances, this early detection also pressures polluters to correct course before facing claims, raising the overall standard of corporate environmental responsibility.

Identifying the right plaintiffs also becomes more precise. Many individuals suffering from PFAS-related diseases may not realize they were exposed at all. When legal teams combine geolocation, demographic patterns, epidemiology, and targeted outreach, they bridge the gap between potential claimants and the information they need to understand their legal rights. 

This Might Interest You:

• California Homeowners Fight FAIR Plan Over Smoke Damage Denials
• How AI and Satellite Imagery are Exposing Supply Chain Greenwashing