Select Brand

Facts on C-8 Litigation

This page is meant to provide facts about a series of trials related to C-8, which will begin in September 2015 in Columbus, Ohio. DuPont is the named defendant in these cases, with Chemours now responsible to DuPont for these lawsuits going forward. Six cases are expected to go to trial by the end of 2016, all related to C-8. Chemours is confident that DuPont acted reasonably and responsibly at each stage in the long history of C-8 and that DuPont placed a high priority on the health and safety of workers and community members. We will continue to vigorously defend against C-8 lawsuits.


Background on C-8: C-8 was a processing aid (a surfactant, like a soap) that the 3M Company manufactured and sold to a number of companies. DuPont purchased C-8 from 3M from the 1950s through 2000, and then manufactured C-8 for about a dozen years after that time.


Many companies used C-8 over the course of many decades. While DuPont and other leading global manufacturers phased out its use in recent years, many companies appear to be making or using C-8 today in some parts of the world.


2004 Leach Settlement: In August 2001, a class action called Leach v. DuPont was filed in West Virginia state court and the parties reached agreement in 2004 to settle the matter. The Leach settlement charged an independent Science Panel with deciding whether any “probable link” exists between exposure to PFOA among class members and human disease.


The Leach settlement defines the standard for “probable link” as whether it is more likely than not that PFOA exposure among class members is linked to a human disease. A probable link report does not mean that the Science Panel has concluded that PFOA exposure has caused or will cause any human disease among the class members as a whole, including Washington Works employees, or any individual.


The Science Panel was established in 2005, and after years of study, they reached probable link determinations in 2011 and 2012. The science panel found probable links to six conditions:


  • Pregnancy induced hypertension
  • Kidney and testicular cancer
  • Ulcerative colitis
  • Thyroid disease
  • Diagnosed high cholesterol


The Science Panel specifically found no probable link for the following disease conditions:


  • Birth defects
  • All but two types of cancer
  • Type I diabetes
  • Type II (adult onset) diabetes
  • Low birth weight and preterm birth
  • Miscarriage and still birth
  • Asthma
  • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”)
  • Stroke
  • Infectious disease
  • Crohn’s disease
  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • Lupus
  • Neurological development in children
  • Liver Disease
  • Kidney Disease
  • Osteoarthritis
  • Parkinson's disease
  • Heart disease
  • Hypertension


DuPont has complied with its obligations: DuPont has complied with and continues to meet its obligations as set out in the Leach Settlement Agreement. The company continues to provide water treatment as outlined under the settlement.


DuPont also is funding a Medical Monitoring program, and this program has been publicized as required by the court settlement and is available to those who are eligible and want to take advantage of the program for various medical screenings. Participation in the Medical Monitoring Program is an individual choice and many people have chosen not to participate.


Personal Injury Cases: A series of personal injury cases have been filed in federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia by individuals who claim one or more of the six probable link conditions. These cases have been consolidated in an Ohio federal court, and six of them have been selected to proceed to trial by the end of 2016.


These cases are not a class action. There are approximately 3500 individual cases with individual facts. They have been consolidated in the federal court for purposes of initial fact-gathering and other pretrial proceedings. The majority of these lawsuits allege high cholesterol and thyroid disease.


The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are required to prove that C-8 was the specific cause of their disease. In many of these cases the jury will need to consider the impact of other factors such as family history, lifestyle choices and other causes of health issues and disease in specific individuals.


Chemours is confident that DuPont acted reasonably and responsibly at each stage in the long history of C-8, placing high priority on the health of its employees and the community and putting a great deal of energy into ensuring the safety of its workers and the community. DuPont never believed that the extremely low levels of C-8 that reached the community would cause any harm. During the time at issue in these lawsuits, federal and state environmental authorities had never established regulations on the use, handling, emissions or disposal of C-8.


Chemours will continue to vigorously defend against C-8 lawsuits.