Toxic “forever chemicals” hidden in everything from smartphones and non-stick cookware to waterproof clothing have triggered Australia’s biggest-ever federal legal action, with the Albanese government launching a bombshell $2 billion lawsuit against US manufacturing giant 3M.

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland (pictured below) announced on Thursday that the Commonwealth had filed proceedings in the Federal Court, accusing 3M of withholding critical information about the environmental dangers of PFAS chemicals used in firefighting foams across Defence sites nationwide.

PFAS – short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are synthetic chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health concerns.

Known as “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down, the compounds have contaminated water, soil and food supplies globally and are now found in the blood of almost every Australian.

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland to repay family travel expenses after independent review - ABC News

The government alleges 3M misrepresented the safety of its aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), claiming the company failed to disclose internal environmental testing that showed significant adverse effects linked to the products.

“This is the largest legal claim ever brought by the Commonwealth,” Rowland said.

“Our position is that 3M withheld a range of information and misrepresented the effects of this substance.”

The lawsuit seeks to recover more than $1.3 billion already spent by Defence on investigating and cleaning up PFAS contamination at 28 Defence sites, with future remediation costs expected to climb significantly higher.

3M said it would defend the claims, noting it had stopped selling PFAS-containing firefighting foam in Australia around 20 years ago and never manufactured PFAS locally.

The company also pointed to a Senate inquiry report showing Defence continued using the foam for years after sales ceased.

The Australian action follows massive legal settlements in the US, where 3M agreed to pay billions to resolve claims linked to contaminated water systems.

Environmental advocates have welcomed the move, arguing taxpayers should not bear the cost of industrial contamination.