PFAS contamination does not have to be time-barred

Legal proceedings addressing PFAS emissions are in progress in many municipalities in Sweden. In a new book, Johanna Chamberlain, legal scholar and researcher in tort law, has analysed the relevant legislation and several ongoing cases. Her research results in proposals for making legal proceedings more efficient, clarifying liability and making it more difficult to dismiss cases with reference to the statutory limitation period.

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) is a collective term for a large group of persistent chemicals that resist degradation. They are harmful to human beings and can disrupt the immune system, brain development and sex hormone levels. PFAS have been used since the 1950s in many industrial materials as well as in products such as make-up, cleaning agents and fire extinguishing foam. One reason why PFAS have caused debate in Sweden is that there have been large emissions of PFAS over many years from fire-fighting exercises using foam carried out by the Swedish Armed Forces and rescue services.

Could be more legal proceedings to come

The emissions and their effects have led to complicated court cases, for example when the water company Uppsala Vatten sued the Swedish Armed Forces, or when a number of residents of the municipality of Ronneby in southern Sweden sued the municipal water company. Both cases concern who should be held liable and who should pay damages to whom.

“In tort law terms, we could say that PFAS injuries are a new type of harm. Pollution damage is difficult to place in the legal system, as illustrated particularly clearly by the Uppsala and Ronneby cases. Bearing in mind that many areas in our country are contaminated by PFAS, we can expect more legal proceedings,” says Johanna Chamberlain, docent and researcher in private law, who has recently published a book on PFAS.

Damages for future harm a possibility

In her research, Chamberlain has analysed the current state of legislation relating to damages due to PFAS. She compares the legislation with the legal practice.

“At present, the legal proceedings take a long time, and with damage that arises gradually repeated court actions are required. The Swedish Environmental Code offers a possibility of awarding damages for future harm, such as large future costs for cleaning up water or land. This should be used in PFAS cases. There is scope for this, for example, in the Uppsala case where the municipality has pursued the issue against the Swedish Armed Forces. Applying the rules of the Environmental Code in this way would simplify the legal proceedings and reduce the costs and the burden for both the parties and the courts.”

"Pollution damage – with a special focus on PFAS damages in Swedish law"

In the book "Föroreningsskador – särskilt om PFAS-skadestånd i svensk rätt" (Pollution damage – with a special focus on PFAS damages in Swedish law), she discusses, among other things:

• In what circumstances can PFAS pollution lead to someone claiming damages and what is required for such a claim to succeed? What are the advantages and disadvantages of various possible rules regarding liability?
• How can the link between cause and effect required by tort law be demonstrated in the case of emissions that often occurred long ago and involved multiple actors?
• Is there a risk that claims for damages will be deemed to be time-barred and if so, how can this objection be met?

Chamberlain also writes about how both municipalities and other authorities and legislation can create better possibilities for dealing with PFAS problems in the future. With regard to liability, she concludes that damages can be based on several possible regulations, depending on the type of harm involved.

Too difficult having to bring cases in multiple courts

“One difficulty is that different courts deal with different laws. The Tort Liability Act and Product Liability Act are dealt with by general courts. The land and environment courts are competent to hear cases under the Act on Public Water Services and the Swedish Environmental Code. This means that you can’t bring a case in just one court, you have to go to different judicial bodies.”

Hard to prove causal link

One major difficulty in nearly all pollution cases is showing that it is particular emissions that have caused pollution damage that comes to light much later. The challenge here is that the documentation and evidence consist of complex scientific dispersion models that then have to be assessed by lawyers who typically lack the relevant expertise.

“The standard of proof for the causal link may need to be adjusted in the future. Comparing with our Nordic neighbours, the situation is different in those countries, where the standard of proof for pollution damage is formulated as ‘probable’ while in Swedish law it is ‘most probable’.”

Some conclusions Johanna Chamberlain draws from her findings:

• PFAS damage is difficult to place in the usual personal injury categories, and damages for rights violations could be an alternative approach. This is now being tested by the Ronneby residents who have applied to the Office of the Chancellor of Justice for damages.
• The possibility of awarding damages for future harm under the Swedish Environmental Code should be utilised in PFAS cases. As the section on future harm has not been applied in the Uppsala case, Uppsala Vatten now has to apply repeatedly for gradually arising claims for damages, which is not an efficient use of resources for either the parties or the courts.
• To determine whether or not claims for damages based on PFAS pollution are time-barred, the purposes of environmental law should be considered. Pollution should be regarded as an ongoing disturbance. If this approach is taken, it would mean that claims are not subject to statutory limitation.

BOOK: Föroreningsskador – särskilt om PFAS-skadestånd i svensk rätt (Pollution damage – with a special focus on PFAS damages in Swedish law), Norstedts Juridik, ISBN: 9789139118886; December 2025, 170 pages; digitally via JUNO

For further information:

Johanna Chamberlain, Docent and Senior Lecturer in Private Law at the Department of Law, Uppsala University, e-mail: johanna.chamberlain@jur.uu.se, phone: +46-70-152 81 36

The research was funded by the Ragnar Söderberg Foundation.