Experts and industry clash as committee examines sweeping PFAS consumer ban and expanded liability

The House Judiciary Committee heard detailed, often technical testimony on House Bill 11‑12, a proposal to ban consumer products containing PFAS (a wide family of fluorinated chemistries often called "forever chemicals") and to expand civil liability and the statute of limitations for PFAS‑related injuries.

Supporters said PFAS are persistent in the environment and linked to cancers and other serious health outcomes and urged a broad, preventive ban on consumer goods while expanding the statute of limitations for wrongful‑death claims tied to long‑latency exposures. Delegate Kevin Hornberger, who presented the measure, described local contamination incidents and said existing statutes limit victims’ ability to seek redress given latency of harm.

Nut graf: The hearing pit two camps against each other. Public‑health and plaintiff‑side witnesses urged an expansive approach to remove PFAS from consumer products and to allow longer timeframes to sue because exposures often predate symptoms. Industry and user‑group witnesses argued the bill’s family‑wide ban was unworkable: PFAS comprises thousands of substances, many of which (for example, fluoropolymers used in medical devices and nonstick cookware) are chemically distinct and are not shown to bioaccumulate; they warned of supply‑chain disruption for aviation, medical devices, semiconductors and other sectors.

Cookware and medical‑device representatives underlined the difference between legacy, mobile PFAS contamination (AFFF firefighting foams) and high‑molecular‑weight fluoropolymers used in implantables and critical infrastructure. W. L. Gore (a major Maryland employer) described PTFE fluoropolymers made in Cecil County and said the bill as written would render their Maryland manufacturing unviable by the proposed compliance date. Industry witnesses urged a substance‑by‑substance approach and cited ongoing state and federal PFAS rulemaking.

Plaintiff‑side attorneys and public‑health witnesses said that because exposures may cause disease decades after manufacture, the bill’s proposed extension of the statute of limitations for wrongful‑death claims to 10 years from death (or three years from discovery) is necessary to provide a remedy for victims, especially where corporate conduct or inadequate warnings masked risk.

Ending: Lawmakers pressed both sides on definitional questions (how PFAS is defined), timelines and the feasibility of alternatives; several urged a narrower approach that would distinguish PFAS of concern from fluoropolymers used in medical and aerospace applications. The committee asked for technical follow‑up; industry groups offered to work with staff on narrower, risk‑based definitions and exemptions.