PLAINTIFF FIRMS - IT IS TIME TO GET UP TO SPEED ON ALL THINGS PFAS, NOW, RIGHT NOW!

We will be spending several hours in our September 22^nd - 24^th litigation update covering all things
PFAS, starting with “this is a football” and taking attendees all the way through deciding which
aspect of this massive litigation they want to pursue. If you can’t make the September event, start
doing your own research. Hopefully many firms will be motivated to become involved simply
because it is the right thing to do, and you are needed. However, if the fact that a massive sum of
fees will be earned in PFAS litigation over the next decade helps, then let that be your motivation. Just do it!

I would ask “if you had a time machine and could go back and get heavily involved in Asbestos,
would you? However, I must change this to “something potentially bigger than Asbestos” and I never
thought I would say this.

I began writing about PFAS and other “forever chemicals” almost a decade ago. I encouraged firms
to start educating themselves on the potential harm caused by these forever chemicals. Then the
Fire Fighter Foam mass litigations occur, and I wrote that we are only seeing the “tip of the iceberg”. Much of my writing ten years ago sounded like theory but not facts that would create ripe litigation. The fruit has now ripened and it’s time to start picking.

When the USGS report was issued this year, it caught the attention of many firms however, if you
think these cases and potential cases are just about water contamination, you are still not seeing the big picture. We are still at the “tip of the iceberg” stage in discovering all potential “case types” plaintiff types and potential defendants in PFSA.

While the PFAS litigation has similarities to the Opioid, Tobacco, and Asbestos litigation, it is more like Asbestos than the others mentioned.

One of the most significant differences in PFAS vs Asbestos arises from the fact that in asbestos
Plaintiffs were primarily of the “occupational exposure” class, with some also being entities bringing public nuisance/ remediation claims.

In PFAS, the scope of “plaintiff types” as well as potential defendants far exceeds that experienced in Opioid, Tobacco, and Asbestos, combined.

The PFAS case has the “defendant ugliness” of Opioid, Tobacco, and Asbestos without the worry
that juries might partially blame the Plaintiff, as was always the case in Opioids and Tobacco.

In Opioids, the primary plaintiff pool was the various States. County Plaintiffs often faced “standing issues” because they were subdivisions of their State. We do not believe the facts and
circumstances of the PFAS litigation will present this same problem for any significant number of
counties, cities, nor municipalities.

To illustrate the fact that the scope of “plaintiff type” if far larger in PFSA than Asbestos, Opioids or tobacco, I will list a few of the case “types” that have already been brought.

In addition to “entity cases” brought by States, Counties cities and municipalities:

A class action was recently brought against Coca Cola Simply Orange juice after PFAS was found in
their consumer product. Given the fact that researchers believe that as much as half of the bottled
water on our shelves may contain PFAS (not to mention other drink products) we are likely to see far more of these cases.

One of the first PFAS cases was brought by a West Virginia (1999) after his livestock and crops were damaged by PFAS in his ground water. The USGS study found ground water contamination in
significant number of areas of the country.

Home and landowners have brought cases because of property devaluation due to PFAS
contamination in ground water and public water supplies.

On the individual product liability/personal injury front, the literature strongly supports the causation of birth defects, preterm births, still births, cancer, multiple organ failure, immune system damage as well as a larger number of injuries to long to list here.

While not as dominant as we the case in Asbestos, Occupational Exposure cases will be common in
PFAS however, the broad array of case types will render Occupational Exposure a significant but not
dominant portion of cases in PFAS.

I will not attempt to cover all the choices plaintiff firms when deciding which aspects or plaintiff groups of this emerging (yes, we are just getting started) you might pique your interest.

The central message I am trying to convey to Plaintiff firms is, GET INVOLVED NOW! You aren’t
behind the eight ball yet, but you’re getting close to that neighborhood.

“Getting involved” starts with gaining the knowledge and information needed to represent Plaintiffs
and deciding which of the many Plaintiff “types” your firm will focus on. If you can make our
September event, you will get a crash course. If you can’t make the event and have to take the long
road of doing your own research, do it!

This will also be your chance to be involved in something you will be proud to tell your grandchildren about many decades from now. Your grandchildren may still be working on this case if they choose to go to law school.