PFAS: Legal Framework and Emerging Litigation Risks Following New Proceedings in France’s ‘Chemical Valley’

The association Notre Affaire à Tous and the collective PFAS contre Terre, which brings together nearly 200 local residents, announced on February 2, 2026 that they had initiated proceedings against Arkema and Daikin (two companies located in the "Chemical Valley” south of Lyon) before the Lyon Judicial Court. They are seeking compensation for what they describe as "health-related harm” resulting, according to them, from contamination by a chemical substance, trifluoroacetic acid (TFA).

According to their press release, the action is based on a report published by the association Générations Futures, highlighting the lack of action by public authorities in addressing the contamination of drinking water by this substance.

 This provides an opportunity to review developments in the regulatory framework applicable to PFAS, often referred to as "forever chemicals”, as well as the nature of the disputes they are likely to give rise to.

Overview of the key EU regulatory frameworks

The cornerstone of chemical regulation in EU Member States is the REACH Regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals, and establishing a European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)[1], which entered into force in 2007. Its objective is to protect human health and the environment from the risks posed by chemical substances and to establish common rules to support the development of the European chemical industry.

Under this Regulation, companies must demonstrate that the substances they manufacture, use or place on the market are safe. All substances manufactured or imported in volumes exceeding one ton per year must be registered. "Substances of very high concern” (SVHC) are subject to an authorization regime while certain substances are subject to restrictions on manufacture, marketing and use.

Due to their persistent nature, PFAS are often regarded as substances of concern subject to authorization procedures and/or enhanced restrictions. However, not all PFAS pose a hazard and an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.

The EU Regulation on the classification, labeling and packaging of substances and mixtures, commonly known as the "CLP” Regulation[2], which entered into force on 20 January 2009, also applies to chemical substances. It aligned the EU system with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) developed by the United Nations.

The classification of certain PFAS families as CMR substances (carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction), as toxic to specific target organs, or as hazardous to the environment factors into determining the applicable procedure under REACH, namely authorization and/or enhanced restrictions.

The European Commission has announced a revision of the CLP Regulation intended to incorporate new hazard classes (such as endocrine disruptors) and strengthen provisions relating to labeling and risk management.

It also published, in 2022, a roadmap designed to further restrict chemical substances considered harmful, and announced a targeted revision of REACH, including stricter disclosure requirements for manufacturers, particularly with regard to PFAS and mixtures containing them (the well-known ‘cocktail effect’), as well as the launch of a reform of authorization and restriction procedures.

Applicable French regulation

On this issue, as in many areas of environmental law, France has adopted legislation that is stricter than the requirements of EU law. In some cases, it has even anticipated developments, particularly regarding the application of the environmental liability regime. This approach has been supported by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirming that Member States may strengthen this regime by imposing joint and several obligations on both owners and operators.

Law of March 27, 2017 on the corporate duty of vigilance for parent companies and contracting companies[3] established a civil liability framework for serious violations of human rights and environmental harm, and thus preceded Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence[4].

Under French law, the duty of vigilance can be invoked under Articles 1240 and 1241 of the French Civil Code, which require any person who has caused harm to another through fault, negligence or imprudence to provide redress, as well as under the specific regime governing compensation for ecological damage set out in Articles 1246 to 1252 of the same Code.

Article L. 225-102-1 of the French Commercial Code, which requires companies of a certain size to implement a vigilance plan and risk mapping, may also be relied upon in conjunction with the aforementioned provisions of the French Civil Code. The absence of risk mapping and of prevention and remediation measures may indeed expose companies to new forms of litigation.

Regarding PFAS specifically, the French legislature, consistently ahead of the curve on environmental matters, established a specific framework through the Law of February 27, 2025[5].

The provisions of this Law, which have been incorporated into Article L. 524-1, I and III of the French Environmental Code, entered into force on January 1, 2026. Under this Article, the manufacture, import, export and placing on the market of certain PFAS-containing products exceeding a regulatory concentration threshold are prohibited (including cosmetics, ski wax, and textile clothing items, etc.). This prohibition is subject to certain exceptions, the list of which is to be set by decree (in particular for products that are used for national defense or civil protection purposes).

Starting in 2030, this prohibition regime will be extended to all textiles containing PFAS, subject to exceptions to be set by decree.

An implementing decree dated December 28, 2025, which entered into force on January 1, 2026[6], specified the prohibited products and established a 12-month sell-through period extending until January 1, 2027.

Hardline environmental activism and the rising threat of litigation

No one disputes the need to prohibit products containing substances that pose an unacceptable risk to consumers or users, or that cause proven harm to the environment.

However, the uncompromising stance adopted by certain environmental groups has raised significant concerns. These groups advocate for the outright prohibition of all chemical substances, regardless of their specific nature. This is a fight that has been waged for decades by the association Générations Futures, which is once again playing a leading role in the action brought against Arkema and Daikin.

I have acted, as counsel, for chemical and agrochemical companies in litigation brought by environmental advocacy groups and local resident collectives that ultimately resulted in dismissals, acquittals or the rejection of claims, often ten to fifteen years after the initial filing of a complaint or the commencement of proceedings before the civil or administrative courts.

For example, I represented a global leader in the agrochemical industry whose seed coating product was wrongly accused of migrating into plants and killing bees. This case, which received extensive media coverage and was regularly featured in television news throughout the 2000s, ultimately ended in a dismissal, confirmed by the Toulouse Court of Appeals and the Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court). The case was won in court, but lost in the media, and the product was never reintroduced to the market.

Another case concerns not a product but an incinerator located near Albertville in the Savoie region. This case, which was also the subject of intense media scrutiny, has become known as the ‘dioxin case’. It took ten years of judicial investigation for the scientific evidence to prevail. The criminal investigation established that the street where the incinerator was located – referred to as ‘cancer street’ by the activist collectives and environmental associations behind the complaint – actually had fewer cancer cases than the national average, according to studies conducted by the French Institute for Public Health Surveillance across the country. This case ultimately cost the mayor of Albertville (President of the inter-municipal authority owning the incinerator), whom I represented, his re-election.

The sharp rise in the number of actions brought by associations and collectives against glyphosate – which remains authorized throughout the rest of Europe – provides another illustration of the broad-based strategy pursued by environmental groups, which aim to secure the prohibition of all products containing chemical substances. I recently secured, on behalf of a global leader in the agrochemical industry, the dismissal of claims brought against herbicide products containing glyphosate. These judicial decisions have not, however, dispelled the negative perception of this substance in public opinion.

Of particular concern today is the level of reliance placed by the media on so-called scientific reports produced by activist groups promoting degrowth, such as Générations Futures, even where such reports are contradicted by studies conducted by European and French authorities responsible for protecting human health and the environment, including the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), as well as by analyses from official laboratories, all of which are, however, accused by radical environmental groups to be under the control of industry lobbies.

This particularly hostile environment for industrial companies, more pronounced in France than in other European countries, should prompt them to prepare for new forms of litigation, both before the civil and criminal courts and before the administrative courts, with increasing recourse to summary proceedings (référés civils[7] but also référés liberté[8]before the administrative judge, encouraged by recent decisions of the Conseil d’État (French Administrative Supreme Court) recognizing the right to live in a balanced environment respectful of health as a fundamental freedom, on the basis of Article 1 of the Environmental Charter[9]).

The idea promoted by degrowth-driven environmentalists that the world could function without chemical substances is absurd. Without them, the vast majority of products and medicines simply would not exist. Such substances are subject to European and French regulations that are increasingly protective of health and the environment – and rightly so. However, we must not lose sight of REACH’s other objective: fostering the development of the European chemical industry. Above all, we must avoid repeating the same mistakes made with civil nuclear power, which was vilified fifteen years ago by the same radical environmentalists, with the consequences we are all familiar with.