XML 35 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 17. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings: The Company and some of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous claims and lawsuits and regulatory proceedings worldwide. These claims, lawsuits and proceedings relate to matters including, but not limited to, commercial; products liability (involving products that the Company now or formerly manufactured and sold); securities and corporate governance; antitrust and competition; intellectual property; environmental, health and safety; tax; employment; the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and other anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws; international import and export requirements and trade sanctions compliance; laws and regulations that apply to industries served by the Company, including the False Claims Act, anti-kickback laws, and the Sunshine Act; and other matters. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is vigorously defending all such litigation and proceedings. From time to time, the Company also receives subpoenas, investigative demands or requests for information from various government agencies in the United States and foreign countries. The Company generally responds in a cooperative, thorough and timely manner. These responses sometimes require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred by the Company. Such requests can also lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of administrative, civil, or criminal legal proceedings against the Company and others, as well as to settlements. The Company also from time to time becomes aware of certain writs of summons, pre-suit claims, demands or other preliminary or informal assertions of claims or potential future claims that may proceed in the United States or in foreign countries. In response, the Company or its subsidiaries may engage in respect of such matters where it believes it would be appropriate to work towards a negotiated resolution of such matters. The outcomes of legal proceedings and regulatory matters are often difficult to predict. Any determination that the Company’s operations or activities are not, or were not, in compliance with applicable laws or regulations could result in the imposition of fines, civil or criminal penalties, and equitable remedies, including disgorgement, suspension or debarment, or injunctive relief. Process for Disclosure and Recording of Liabilities Related to Legal Proceedings: Many lawsuits and claims involve highly complex issues relating to causation, scientific evidence, and alleged actual damages, all of which are subject to substantial uncertainties. Assessments of lawsuits and claims can involve a series of complex judgments about future events and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The categories of legal proceedings in which the Company is involved may include multiple lawsuits and claims, may be spread across multiple jurisdictions and courts which may handle the lawsuits and claims differently, may involve numerous and different types of plaintiffs, raising claims and legal theories based on specific allegations that may not apply to other matters, and may seek substantial compensatory and, in some cases, punitive, damages. These and other factors contribute to the complexity of these lawsuits and claims and make it difficult for the Company to predict outcomes and make reasonable estimates of any resulting losses. The Company's ability to predict outcomes and make reasonable estimates of potential losses is further influenced by the fact that a resolution of one or more matters within a category of legal proceedings may impact the resolution of other matters in that category in terms of timing, amount of liability, or both. When making determinations about recording liabilities related to legal proceedings, the Company complies with the requirements of ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance, and records liabilities in those instances where it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss and when the loss is probable. Where the reasonable estimate of the probable loss is a range, the Company records as an accrual in its financial statements the most likely estimate of the loss, or the low end of the range if there is no one best estimate. The Company either discloses the amount of a possible loss or range of loss in excess of established accruals if estimable, or states that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company discloses significant legal proceedings even where liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, if the Company believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred. Based on experience and developments, the Company reexamines its estimates of probable liabilities and associated expenses and receivables each period, and whether a loss previously determined to not be reasonably estimable and/or not probable is now able to be reasonably estimated or has become probable. Where appropriate, the Company makes additions to or adjustments of its reasonably estimated losses and/or accruals. As a result, the current accruals and/or estimates of loss and the estimates of the potential impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the legal proceedings, and claims pending against the Company will likely change over time. Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, the Company may ultimately incur charges substantially in excess of presently recorded liabilities, including with respect to matters for which no accruals are currently recorded, because losses are not currently probable and reasonably estimable. Many of the matters described herein are at varying stages, seek an indeterminate amount of damages, or seek damages in amounts that the Company believes are not indicative of the ultimate losses that may be incurred. It is not uncommon for claims to be resolved over many years. As a matter progresses, the Company may receive information, through plaintiff demands, through discovery, in the form of reports of purported experts, or in the context of settlement or mediation discussions, that purport to quantify an amount of alleged damages, but with which the Company may not agree. Such information may or may not lead the Company to determine that it is able to make a reasonable estimate as to a probable loss or range of loss in connection with a matter. However, even when a loss or range of loss is not probable and reasonably estimable, developments in, or the ultimate resolution of, a matter could be material to the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company, its consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. In addition, future adverse rulings or developments, or settlements in, one or more matters could result in future changes to determinations of probable and reasonably estimable losses in other matters. Process for Disclosure and Recording of Insurance Receivables Related to Legal Proceedings: The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of the terms of its numerous policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of the claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has concluded is recognizable and expects to receive in light of the loss recovery and/or gain contingency models under ASC 450, ASC 610-30, and related guidance. For those insured legal proceedings where the Company has recorded an accrued liability in its financial statements, the Company also records receivables for the amount of insurance that it concludes as recognizable from the Company’s insurance program. For those insured matters where the Company has not recorded an accrued liability because the liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, but where the Company has incurred an expense in defending itself, the Company records receivables for the amount of insurance that it concludes as recognizable for the expense incurred. Impact of Solventum Spin-Off: On April 1, 2024, the Company completed the planned spin-off of its Health Care business as an independent company known as Solventum. Concurrent with the spin-off, the Company and Solventum entered into various agreements, including transition agreements and a separation and distribution agreement that, among other things, identified the assets to be transferred, the liabilities to be assumed, indemnification and defense obligations, and the contracts to be transferred to Solventum and 3M as part of the spin-off. The following sections first describe the significant legal proceedings in which the Company is involved and then describe the liabilities and associated insurance recoveries the Company has recorded relating to its significant legal proceedings. Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation: As of June 30, 2025, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 3,500 individual claimants, compared to approximately 3,500 individual claimants with actions pending as of December 31, 2024. The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company’s mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. The Company’s current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, is expected to represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the Company has prevailed in nineteen of the twenty cases tried to a jury. The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company’s respiratory protection products. Nonetheless, the Company’s litigation experience indicates that claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are costlier to litigate and resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants. As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, and amended its complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for workers' compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. In October 2019, the court granted the State’s motion to sever its unfair trade practices claim, which seeks civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation under the state's Consumer Credit Protection Act relating to statements that the State contends were misleading about 3M’s 8710 respirators, which were last sold by the Company in 1998 in the United States. An initial bench trial began in January 2025 on certain issues in the action. The issues presented during the bench trial include the statute of limitations, the period available for any penalties under the West Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and the State’s claims that the 8710 respirators did not perform as advertised. The bench trial is scheduled to resume in August 2025 and a completion date has not been set. Following resolution by the court of the issues presented during the initial bench trial, the amount, if any, of any civil penalties upon a finding of liability against the Company would be determined through subsequent trial proceedings at an unspecified future date. An expert witness retained by the State has estimated that 3M sold over five million respirators into the state during the relevant time period, and the State alleges that each respirator sold constitutes a separate violation under the Act. 3M disputes the expert's estimates and the State's position regarding what constitutes a separate violation of the Act. 3M has asserted various additional defenses, including that the Company's marketing did not violate the Act at any time, and that the State's claims are barred under the applicable statute of limitations. No liability has been recorded for any portion of this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss due to open factual and legal questions. Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities. The Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company’s mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and (iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve claims (collectively, the “Claims Data”). As part of its comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs. The third party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and resolve pending and future claims. The Company uses this analysis to develop its estimate of probable liability. Developments may occur that could affect the Company’s estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the Company’s accrual, including the number of future claims, the nature and mix of those claims, and the average cost of defending and resolving claims and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers. As a result of its review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, of pending and expected lawsuits and of the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, the Company increased its accruals in the first six months of 2025 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $17 million, and made payments for legal defense costs and settlements of $66 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. As of June 30, 2025, the Company had an accrual for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of $474 million. This accrual represents the Company’s estimate of probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050. The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of (i) the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the fact that complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant’s share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors described above that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments described above that may occur that could affect the Company’s estimate of liabilities. Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation — Aearo Technologies: On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company acquired the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies (“Aearo”). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo’s respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation (“Cabot”)) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, coal mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. As of June 30, 2025, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of $53 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos, silica-related and coal mine dust claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the “Payor Group”). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the “AO Safety” brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo’s share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo’s potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995, period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters. Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo’s liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants, (viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group including exhaustion of available insurance coverage limits, and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of the contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo’s share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the developments described above were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than the amount accrued. Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group, and the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo’s liabilities, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo’s liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established. Environmental Matters and Litigation: The Company’s operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations including those pertaining to air emissions, wastewater discharges, toxic or hazardous substances, and the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, which are enforceable by national, state, and local authorities around the world, and many for which private parties in the United States and abroad may have rights of action. These laws and regulations can form the basis of, under certain circumstances, claims for the investigation and remediation of contamination, for capital investment in pollution control equipment, for restoration of and/or compensation for damages to natural resources, and for personal injury and property damages. The Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs and capital expenditures in complying with these laws and regulations, defending personal injury, natural resource and property damage claims, and modifying its business operations in light of its environmental responsibilities. In its effort to satisfy its environmental responsibilities and comply with environmental laws and regulations, the Company has established, and periodically updates, policies relating to environmental standards of performance for its operations worldwide. Under certain environmental laws, including the United States Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") and similar state laws, the Company may be jointly and severally liable, sometimes with other potentially responsible parties, for the costs of investigation and remediation of environmental contamination at current or former facilities and at off-site locations where hazardous substances have been released or disposed of. The Company has identified numerous locations, many of which are in the United States, at which it may have some liability for remediation of contamination under applicable environmental laws. Please refer to the section entitled “Environmental Liabilities” that follows for information on the amount of the accrual for such liabilities. Environmental Matters As previously reported, the Company has been voluntarily cooperating with ongoing reviews by local, state, federal (primarily the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")), and international agencies of possible environmental and health effects of various perfluorinated compounds, including perfluorooctanoate ("PFOA"), perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), perfluorobutane sulfonate ("PFBS"), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid ("HFPO-DA") and other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (collectively, "PFAS"). As a result of a phase-out decision in May 2000, the Company no longer manufactures certain PFAS compounds including PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and their precursor compounds. The Company ceased manufacturing and using the vast majority of those compounds within approximately two years of the phase-out announcement and ceased all manufacturing and the last significant use of those compounds by the end of 2008. 3M announced in December 2022 it would take two further actions with respect to PFAS: exiting all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025, and working to discontinue the use of PFAS across its product portfolio by the end of 2025. 3M is progressing toward the exit of all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025. Until that time, the Company continues to manufacture a variety of shorter-chain-length PFAS compounds. These compounds are used as input materials to a variety of products, including engineered fluorinated fluids, fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers, as well as surfactants, additives, and coatings. Through its ongoing life cycle management and its raw material composition identification processes associated with the Company’s policies covering the use of all persistent and bio-accumulative materials, the Company continues to review, control or eliminate the presence of certain PFAS in purchased materials, as intended substances in products, or as byproducts in some of 3M’s current manufacturing processes, products, and waste streams. As noted, 3M is progressing toward the exit of all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025. The Company continues to discuss its PFAS manufacturing exit, and related issues involving the disposition of manufacturing assets, with customers, government authorities, and other stakeholders, and the Company remains focused on completing the exit in a timely and orderly fashion. As also noted, 3M is working to discontinue the use of PFAS across its product portfolio by the end of 2025 and has made progress in eliminating the use of PFAS across its product portfolio in a variety of applications. With respect to PFAS-containing products not manufactured by 3M in the Company's supply chains, the Company continues to evaluate the availability and feasibility of third-party products that do not contain PFAS. Depending on the availability and feasibility of such third-party products not containing PFAS, the Company continues to evaluate circumstances in which the use of PFAS-containing products manufactured by third parties and used in certain applications in 3M’s product portfolios, such as lithium ion batteries, printed circuit boards, certain seals and gaskets, and other products widely used in commerce across a variety of industries, and in some cases required by regulatory or industry standards, may, are expected to or, in some cases, will, depending on applications, continue beyond 2025. In other cases, sales of products manufactured before the end of 2025, sales of products through customer transitions to new products, regulatory approvals, or customer re-certifications or re-qualifications of substitutes or replacements to eliminate the use of PFAS may not or are not expected to be completed, or, depending on circumstances, will not be completed, by the end of 2025. With respect to PFAS-containing products manufactured by third parties, the Company intends to continue to evaluate beyond the end of 2025 the adoption of third-party products that do not contain PFAS to the extent such products are available and such adoption is feasible. PFAS Regulatory and Legislative Activity Regulatory and legislative activities concerning PFAS are accelerating in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and before certain international bodies. These activities include gathering of exposure and use information, risk assessment activities, and increasingly stringent restrictions on various uses of PFAS in products and on PFAS in manufacturing emissions and environmental media, in some cases moving towards presently non-detectable limits for certain PFAS compounds. Regulatory limits for PFAS in emissions and in environmental media such as soil and water (including drinking water) are being set at increasingly low levels. Global regulations also appear to be increasingly focused on a broader group of PFAS, including PFAS compounds manufactured by 3M, used in current 3M products or generated as byproducts or degradation products from certain 3M production processes. Finally, in certain jurisdictions, legislation is being considered that, if enacted, might authorize the recovery from individuals or entities costs alleged to have been imposed on the jurisdiction's healthcare system, as well as related costs. If such activity continues, including as regulations become final and enforceable, 3M may incur material costs to comply with new regulatory requirements or as a result of regulation-related litigation or regulatory enforcement actions. Such regulatory changes may also have an impact on 3M’s reputation and may also increase its costs and potential litigation exposure to the extent legal defenses rely on regulatory thresholds, or changes in regulation influence public perception. Given divergent and rapidly evolving regulatory drinking water and other environmental standards, there is currently significant uncertainty about the potential costs to industry and communities associated with remediation and control technologies that may be required. Europe In the European Union, where 3M has PFAS manufacturing facilities in Germany and Belgium, recent regulatory activities have included various proposed and enacted restrictions of PFAS or certain PFAS compounds, including, among others, under the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals ("REACH"), the EU’s Persistent Organic Pollutants ("POPs") Regulation, the EU's Food Contaminants Regulation and the EU's Water Drinking Directive. PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS (and their related compounds) are listed under several Annexes of the POPs Regulation, resulting in a ban in manufacture, placing on the market and use as well as some waste management requirements of these substances in EU Member States. These substances have also been listed in the Stockholm Convention, which has been ratified by more than 180 countries and aims for global elimination of certain listed substances (with narrow exceptions). In February 2023, an EU-wide restriction on the manufacture, use, placing on the market and import of certain perfluoro carboxylic acids (C9-C14 PFCAs), which are PFAS substances, also went into effect. A proposal for the global restriction on production and use of long-chain PFCAs was adopted by the parties to the Stockholm Convention in May 2025, and will enter into force in most countries globally in late 2026. In September 2024, the EU adopted a restriction on certain uses of perfluorohexanoic acid (“PFHxA”) and PFHxA-related substances, including in consumer goods and some uses of firefighting foams and concentrates. With respect to the applicability of the amendment of the EU POPs Regulation to include PFOA, which has been applicable since 2021, Dyneon, a 3M subsidiary that operates the Gendorf facility in Germany, proactively consulted with the relevant German competent authority regarding improvements necessary to meet applicable limits for a recycling process for a critical emulsifier for which small amounts of PFOA are present as an unintended contaminant after recycling. In consultation with German regulatory authorities, to achieve the applicable limits for the use of the emulsifier until the exit of PFAS manufacturing, Dyneon uses a method containing a mix of recycled and virgin emulsifier. In February 2023, the European Chemicals Agency published a proposal to restrict the manufacture, placing on the market, and use of PFAS under REACH, subject to certain proposed exceptions. Depending on the timing, scope, and obligations contained in any final restriction, PFAS manufacturers and manufacturers of PFAS-containing products including 3M could incur additional costs and potential exposures, including costs of having to discontinue or modify products prior to the previously-announced exit of PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025, future compliance costs, possible litigation and/or enforcement actions. Effective January 2023, the EU Food Contaminants Regulation targeting four PFAS (PFOS, PFOA, perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), and PFHxS) in foodstuff (eggs and animal derived meat) prohibits the sale in all member states of foods containing levels of these chemicals exceeding certain regulatory thresholds. This change may impact 3M, but any such impact is unknown at this time. The EU regulates PFAS in drinking water via a Drinking Water Directive, which includes a limit of 0.1 micrograms per liter (µg/l) (or 0.1 parts per billion (ppb)) for a sum of 20 PFAS in drinking water. January 2023 was the deadline for Member States to implement the Directive. A majority of Member States have implemented the EU Directive. Some Member States, including Germany, adopted more restrictive limits for certain PFAS substances. These new standards may have an impact on remedial obligations and liabilities, though such impact is unknown at this time. Government interactions related to PFAS manufacturing in Gendorf Dyneon and the predecessor operators of the Gendorf facility commissioned a voluntary feasibility study by an independent soil consultant. The study discusses the feasibility of various options to treat PFOA in soil and groundwater as well as associated costs and the environmental impact of such treatment or disposal. The study has been shared with the competent authority. An expert body advising the competent authorities in the county provided feedback on the feasibility study and identified several additional recommended steps, including certain immediate measures and additional soil and groundwater investigations, and the competent authorities have indicated that they are likely to adopt at least some of the recommended steps. As a result of this process, Dyneon has agreed to sponsor environmental studies related to the potential establishment of a landfill to dispose of PFOA-impacted soil, and a local authority has indicated that Dyneon should contribute to the financing of that landfill. Dyneon also continues to engage with the authorities about potential remedial actions, which may be required in the future to address soil and groundwater. In January 2025, the competent German authority issued a draft order that, if issued as drafted, would require Dyneon to undertake certain technical planning and testing activities and submit those results to the competent authority to allow it to determine whether such data provides a sufficient basis to thereafter plan for a hydraulic barrier at a location to be determined near the Gendorf site. In March 2025, Dyneon responded to the draft order saying, in part, that the draft order’s terms are unsuited to addressing concerns arising out of the historical use of PFAS in the region and instead offering to engage with the competent authority to discuss potential solutions to the concerns raised. Also in March 2025, Dyneon received from the competent authority a draft order that would, if issued as drafted, require Dyneon to undertake a comprehensive remedial investigation of PFOA in soil and groundwater in areas outside the Gendorf facility. In June 2025, Dyneon responded to the draft order and offered to undertake on a voluntary basis certain elements of the investigatory work described in the draft order. Dyneon continues to engage with the competent authorities about potential remedial actions related to the Gendorf facility that may be required in the future. PFAS manufacturing in Zwijndrecht: 3M Belgium, a subsidiary of the Company, owns and operates a facility in Zwijndrecht, Antwerp, Belgium that formerly manufactured various PFAS containing products. All PFAS manufacturing was completed and discontinued at the Zwijndrecht facility in 2024 as part of the Company’s previously-announced global exit of all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025. 3M Belgium has been working with the Public Flemish Waste Agency ("OVAM") for several years to investigate and remediate PFAS contamination at and near the Zwijndrecht facility. In connection with a ring road construction project (the Oosterweel Project) in Antwerp that involves extensive soil work, an investigative committee with judicial investigatory powers was formed in June 2021 by the Flemish Parliament to investigate PFAS found in the soil and groundwater near the Zwijndrecht facility. At various points, the Flemish Parliament, the Minister of the Environment, and regulatory authorities initiated investigations and demands for information related to the release of PFAS from the Zwijndrecht facility. 3M Belgium has cooperated with the authorities with respect to the investigations and information requests and is working with the authorities on an ongoing basis. In August 2024, the province of Antwerp approved 3M Belgium's latest application for modifying its water discharge permit related to certain PFAS parameters. Following an appeal against the permit by a local non-profit organization, in March 2025, the Flemish Government confirmed the permit. The Flemish Government's confirmation was appealed by a Belgian non-profit organization. 3M Belgium cannot predict the outcome of such appeal and is therefore unable to assess whether the current Zwijndrecht wastewater treatment system, or currently conceived additional treatment technology, ultimately will be determined to meet permit limits imposed with respect to manufacturing at the Zwijndrecht facility. It is possible that the outcome of the appeal or future permit amendments will alter discharge limits and will require additional actions to reduce legacy sources of PFAS or that the wastewater treatment system there will be unable to meet future discharge limits. If 3M Belgium is unable to meet the eventual discharge limits, such development could have a significant adverse impact on 3M Belgium's normal operations and the Company's businesses that receive products and other materials from the Zwijndrecht facility, some of which may not be available or in similar quantities from other 3M facilities, which could in turn impact these businesses' ability to fulfill supply obligations to their customers. Soil remediation and environmental law compliance: Flemish government actions and Remediation Agreement. As previously disclosed, following the issuance of a notice of default from the Flemish Region alleging violations of environmental laws and seeking PFAS-related action and compensation, in July 2022, 3M Belgium and the Flemish Government announced an agreement (the “Remediation Agreement”) in connection with the Zwijndrecht facility. Pursuant to the Remediation Agreement, 3M Belgium, among other things, committed an aggregate of €571 million, including enhancements to site discharge control technologies, support for qualifying local commercial farmers impacted by restrictions on sale of agricultural products, ongoing off-site descriptive soil investigation, amounts to address certain identified priority remedial actions (which may include supporting additional actions as required under the Flemish Soil Decree), funds to be used by the Flemish Government in its sole discretion in connection with PFAS emissions from the Zwijndrecht facility, and support for the Oosterweel Project in cash and support services. The agreement contains certain provisions ending litigation and providing certain releases of liability for 3M Belgium, while recognizing that the Flemish Government retains its authority to act in the future to protect its citizenry, as specified in the agreement. In connection with these actions, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $500 million in the first half of 2022. Soil/groundwater remediation. Consistent with Flemish environmental law, descriptive soil investigations (“DSIs”) have been carried out to assess areas of potential PFAS contamination that may require remediation. An accredited third-party soil remediation expert has conducted these DSIs. 3M Belgium has submitted all currently required DSIs. Further, as previously disclosed, the accredited third-party soil remediation expert has prepared multiple remedial action plans (RAPs) that have been approved by OVAM, the competent authority, and implementation activities are underway. 3M Belgium has also submitted additional required RAPs, which OVAM deemed to be not in conformity with the Flemish Soil Decree and will require additional analysis. OVAM provided extensions of time for 3M Belgium to revise and re-submit each RAP it found to be non-conforming. 3M Belgium representatives continue to have discussions with the relevant authorities regarding further soil remedial actions and related groundwater actions in connection with the Flemish Soil Decree. Changes to Flemish Soil Decree. In December 2022, the Flemish Cabinet took steps to implement an executive action (the “Site Decision”) designed to expand 3M Belgium’s remedial obligations around the Zwijndrecht site. 3M Belgium filed a legal challenge seeking to annul the Site Decision. In March 2025, the Council of State affirmed 3M Belgium's petition and annulled the Site Decision in its entirety. In July 2023, the Flemish government approved another executive action establishing a temporary action framework that sets soil and groundwater values for evaluation of remediation of PFAS. In December 2023, 3M Belgium filed a legal challenge seeking to annul the temporary action framework. On June 23, 2025, the Flemish Minister of the Environment announced the intent to withdraw the temporary action framework and announced a review focused upon harmonizing the objectives of protecting human health and the environment with the social cost of management of PFAS in the environment and remedial activities. This includes proposed modifications to the Flemish Soil Decree, as well as interpretations and other guidance from competent regulatory authorities. 3M Belgium is unable to predict the outcome of this process and any changes to existing standards could impose additional financial and remedial obligations on 3M Belgium depending on the standards ultimately adopted. In May 2024, the Flemish government adopted legislation expanding the authority of OVAM to require financial security for remediation work and giving it the ability to impose a percentage of the cost of remediating river sediment on various parties while requiring financial assurance for such work. OVAM has not yet required such financial security from 3M Belgium or imposed such costs on 3M Belgium. These actions potentially could create presently undetermined additional financial obligations for 3M Belgium. Pending or potential litigation and investigations outside the United States Litigation. Belgium. As of June 30, 2025, a total of eighteen actions against 3M Belgium are pending in Belgian civil courts. 3M Belgium has also received pre-litigation notices from individuals and entities in Belgium indicating potential claims. The pending cases include claims by individuals, municipalities, and other entities for alleged soil and wastewater or rainwater contamination with PFAS, nuisance, tort liability, personal injury and for an environmental injunction. While most of the actions are in early stages, one of the actions resulted in an award of provisional damages of 500 euros to each of four family members who live near the Zwijndrecht site. Approximately 1,400 individuals have petitioned to intervene in a second "follow-on action" primarily alleging nuisance claims. The Belgian court has not yet determined that the interventions will be permitted. At an introductory hearing in the case, the court established a briefing schedule with all submissions to be completed by January 2026. In December 2023, 3M Belgium, 3M Company, and several additional 3M entities were named in a lawsuit identifying approximately 1,400 individuals as plaintiffs, which suit is separate from the above-referenced "follow-on action." The suit involves claims for defective products, liability for unlawful acts, and alleges liability of 3M entities as directors and/or shareholders of 3M Belgium, among other claims. At an introductory hearing in November 2024, the case was stayed with no new deadlines established. In June 2024, Lantis, an entity involved in the Oosterweel project, filed a lawsuit against 3M Belgium seeking damages related to soil storage costs and other alleged claims. The parties have been engaged in mediation regarding the dispute as the litigation proceeds. Investigations. As previously disclosed, the Company is aware that criminal complaints have been filed against 3M Belgium with an Antwerp investigatory judge alleging 3M Belgium unlawfully abandoned waste in violation of its environmental care obligations, among other allegations. Certain additional parties reportedly joined the complaints. 3M Belgium has not been served with any such complaints. 3M Belgium has been cooperating with the investigation. The Netherlands. In May 2023, the government of the Netherlands sent 3M Belgium a notice of liability stating that it holds 3M Belgium liable for damages related to alleged PFAS contamination in the Netherlands. The notice purports to identify claims by the Dutch government and references potential damages to other parties. 3M Belgium has met with representatives of the Dutch government to discuss the notice as well as with parties whose interests the Dutch government may also represent. Certain private groups in the Netherlands have indicated that they may bring legal claims on behalf of one or more parties for purported damages allegedly caused by PFAS. In December 2024, a lawsuit was filed in a Dutch court by the Dutch Fishermen's Association acting on behalf of an individual fisherman, naming 3M Belgium and 3M Company as defendants. The lawsuit generally alleges that PFAS from 3M Belgium’s Zwijndrecht facility impacted certain aspects of the Dutch fishing industry and seeks damages arising from that alleged contamination. Canada. In December 2023, a putative class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of Canadian individuals alleging personal injuries from exposure to Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF") imported into Canada for firefighting and other applications. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and the recovery of health care costs incurred by provincial and territorial governments. In June 2024, the province of British Columbia, Canada, filed a putative class action in the British Columbia Supreme Court against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, including all municipalities and other local governments responsible for drinking water systems. The province alleges that the defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold PFAS-containing products, including AFFF, knowing that they would contaminate the environment and threaten human health. The lawsuit asserts claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, negligent design, failure to warn, conspiracy, and breaches of the Competition Act. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the costs incurred in: (1) the investigation, remediation, treatment, assessment, and restoration of lands, waters, sediments, and other natural resources contaminated by PFAS; and (2) the investigation, testing, monitoring, treatment, and remediation of PFAS contamination of drinking water, wastewater, storm water discharges, and biosolids. It also seeks punitive damages and disgorgement of profits. In July 2024, a putative class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of public water suppliers and private well owners in Quebec located near sites where defendants allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed, distributed or sold PFAS. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the testing and treatment of drinking water as well as punitive damages. In August 2024, a putative class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench on behalf of Indian bands in Canada. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and abatement costs for the alleged PFAS contamination of Indian Reserve lands, waters, and other natural resources as well as drinking water. In August and September 2024, putative class actions were filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the Ontario Superior Court and British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of all private well owners in Canada whose well water contains PFAS. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages for the investigation, sampling, testing, assessment, treatment, remediation, and monitoring of well water as well as punitive damages. In July 2025, the Canadian Department of National Defence filed a third-party contribution and indemnification action against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in connection with a pending individual action filed in the Ontario Superior Court alleging property contamination from AFFF firefighting training at the Canadian Forces Detachment Mountain View. In September 2024, a putative nationwide consumer class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of all persons who purchased carpeting treated with PFAS-containing products before January 1, 2020. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and the replacement of PFAS treated carpeting with non-PFAS treated carpeting. In September 2024, the Canadian Minister of Transport filed, and in December 2024 amended, a third-party contribution and indemnification action against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in connection with a pending putative class action filed in British Columbia Supreme Court in April 2024 alleging property contamination from AFFF as a result of firefighting training at the Abbotsford International Airport outside Vancouver. Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) PFAS Section 71 Reporting. Canada’s Minister of the Environment announced in July 2024 a mandatory survey on the manufacture, import, and use of 312 PFAS due on January 29, 2025. 3M timely submitted its response to the survey on May 8, 2025. Australia. In October 2024, 3M Australia received notice that the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency has made a preliminary determination that 3M Australia is responsible for investigating and cleaning up PFAS contamination at a site that 3M Australia formerly leased. In May 2025, the Agency issued a Clean Up Notice related to the site. 3M is continuing to confer with the Agency and is preparing a work plan for a site investigation. The Company is aware of a writ of summons that was filed in Australia on behalf of individuals with connections to property that has been allegedly impacted by 3M PFAS products, however, 3M Australia has not been served with any such summons. Regulation in the United States Federal Activity In the United States, in April 2025, the EPA announced “Major EPA Actions to Combat PFAS Contamination,” including the designation of an agency lead for PFAS, the creation of effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) for certain PFAS, and initiatives to engage with Congress and industry to establish a clear liability framework that includes “polluter pays” and “passive receiver” protection principles. 3M is evaluating the potential impact of this announcement. The Company has previously discussed the evolving regulatory environment in the United States with respect to PFAS in past filings. Updates relevant to this quarter are below. With respect to drinking water, in April 2024, EPA announced final drinking water standards for five individual PFAS – PFOA (4 ppt), PFOS (4 ppt), PFHxS (10 ppt), PFNA (10 ppt), and HFPO-DA (10 ppt). EPA also set a drinking water standard for a combination of two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and PFBS in drinking water, which is based on a “hazard index” approach. Public drinking water suppliers in the United States have five years to meet the limits. Multiple petitions challenging the rule have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In May 2025, EPA announced that it would maintain the 4 ppt standards for PFOA and PFOS but rescind and reconsider the standards for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and PFBS. EPA has until July 21, 2025, to file motions related to further proceedings in the case. In April 2024, EPA released its final rule listing PFOA and PFOS, and their salts and structural isomers, as CERCLA hazardous substances. Multiple industry groups have filed challenges to the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In February 2025, EPA sought and was granted an abeyance of the proceedings to allow the new administration time to review the case. Motions to govern future proceedings are due on August 18, 2025. As a result of the CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS, and to the extent EPA finalizes additional proposals related to PFAS, 3M may be required to undertake additional investigative and/or remediation activities, including where 3M conducts operations or where 3M has disposed of waste. 3M may also face additional litigation from other entities that have liability under CERCLA for claims seeking contribution for clean-up costs other entities may incur. In February 2024, EPA proposed two rules under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). One of the proposed rules would list nine PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, Gen-X, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFDA, and PFBA) and their salts and structural isomers as "hazardous constituents" under RCRA. The other proposed rule would expand the definition of hazardous waste subject to corrective action under RCRA. The Company submitted comments on both proposed rules. In December 2024, as amended in January 2025, EPA published draft National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS. These criteria, once finalized, may be used by states and tribes to establish water quality standards. In October 2023, EPA published a final rule imposing reporting and recordkeeping requirements under TSCA for manufacturers or importers, including 3M, of certain PFAS in any year since January 2011. The rule requires manufacturers to report certain data to EPA regarding each PFAS produced, including the following: chemical identity, total volumes, uses, byproducts, information about environmental and health effects, number of individuals exposed during manufacture, and the manner or method of disposal. This is a one-time reporting requirement covering in-scope activities over a 12-year look-back period from 2011-2022. EPA has delayed the submission period for this reporting rule twice and reports for most companies (including 3M) are now due October 13, 2026. In August 2024, three states (New Jersey, New Mexico, and North Carolina) petitioned EPA to list PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA as hazardous air pollutants under Clean Air Act and to establish emission standards from source categories. EPA has 18 months to respond to the petition. I n December 2024, EPA proposed updates to its general industrial stormwater permit applicable to various industries, including chemical manufacturing. The updates include provisions that, if finalized, would require dischargers in those sectors and in jurisdictions where EPA is the permitting authority to monitor for certain PFAS in their stormwater discharges and report the results. Public comments on the proposed permit were due in May 2025. In January 2025, EPA released a draft risk assessment for PFOA and PFOS in biosolids. Public comments on the EPA’s draft are due in August 2025. If finalized, that risk assessment could inform future regulations on PFAS in wastewater and biosolids. State Activity Several state legislatures and state agencies have been evaluating or have taken various regulatory actions related to PFAS in the environment, including proposing or finalizing cleanup standards for PFAS in soil and water, groundwater standards, surface water standards, and/or drinking water standards for PFOS, PFOA, and other PFAS. 3M has submitted various responsive comments to various of these proposals. Examples of state actions related to PFAS are discussed below. States with finalized drinking water standards for certain PFAS include Vermont, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Several states, including California, Connecticut, Maine, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont have started processes to adopt EPA’s federal drinking water standards for PFAS into state rules. Delaware, Idaho, Rhode Island, and North Carolina previously began those processes. In April 2021, 3M filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy ("EGLE") to invalidate the drinking water standards EGLE promulgated under an accelerated timeline. In November 2022, the court granted 3M’s motion for summary judgment on the merits and invalidated EGLE’s rule based on its failure to properly consider relevant costs. The court stayed the effect of its decision pending appeal. EGLE appealed the decision in December 2022. In August 2023, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision that EGLE’s rule was invalid. EGLE appealed that ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court. In March 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for resolution of certain questions not previously addressed. Some states have also been evaluating or have taken actions relating to PFOA, PFOS and other PFAS compounds in products. As discussed in previous disclosures, Maine and Minnesota have both enacted laws that include broad PFAS prohibition and reporting obligations. In April 2025, New Mexico enacted a law restricting intentionally added PFAS in certain categories of consumer products beginning January 1, 2027, and in all products starting in 2032. The law also requires manufacturers of any products containing intentionally added PFAS to submit certain information to the New Mexico Environment Department and gives that Department authority to require product testing for PFAS. In June 2025, Vermont enacted a statute restricting the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, distribution for sale, and distribution for use of certain consumer products that contain PFAS. Most of the restrictions on consumer products take effect January 1, 2026, with later deadlines for certain product categories. Certain states, including Colorado, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington, have enacted restrictions on PFAS in certain categories of products, including textiles, children’s products, cosmetics, fire fighter personal protective equipment and food packaging products. The Company cannot predict what additional regulatory or legislative actions in the United States, Europe and elsewhere arising from the foregoing or other proceedings and activities, if any, may be taken regarding such compounds or the consequences of any such actions to the Company, including to its manufacturing operations and its products. Given divergent and rapidly evolving regulatory standards, there currently is significant uncertainty about the potential costs to industry and communities associated with remediation and control technologies that may be required. Litigation Related to Historical PFAS Manufacturing Operations in Alabama As previously reported, 3M has resolved numerous claims relating to PFAS contamination of properties and water supplies allegedly caused by 3M’s Decatur, Alabama manufacturing facility. 3M continues to make payments pursuant to these resolutions. 3M will continue to address PFAS at certain other closed municipal sites at which the Company historically disposed waste and continue environmental characterization in the area. This work will complement an Interim Consent Order that 3M entered into with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM") in 2020 and includes sampling of environmental media, such as ground water, regarding the potential presence of PFAS at the 3M Decatur facility and legacy disposal sites, as well as supporting the execution of appropriate remedial actions. In August 2022, Colbert County, Alabama, which opted out of an earlier class settlement, filed a lawsuit against 3M and several co-defendants alleging that discharge from operations in Decatur had contaminated the Tennessee River, from which the County draws its drinking water. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) issued a conditional transfer order of this case to the AFFF federal Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") in December 2024. Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied without prejudice to refile following the Fourth Circuit's decision in 3M's appeal of the orders remanding cases brought by the Maryland and South Carolina Attorneys General, as discussed below. In February 2023, the City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama filed a lawsuit against 3M and several co-defendants alleging that discharge from operations in Decatur had contaminated the Tennessee River, from which the City draws its drinking water. The JPML issued a conditional transfer order of this case to the AFFF MDL in December 2024. Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied without prejudice to refile following the Fourth Circuit's decision in 3M's appeal of the orders remanding cases brought by the Maryland and South Carolina Attorneys General, as discussed below. In April 2025, Colbert County and the City of Muscle Shoals filed a joint motion to remand the two above-referenced cases to state court. Since December 2023, a number of personal injury actions have been filed against 3M and other defendants, alleging exposure to PFAS from defendants' operations in Decatur. 3M has removed these cases to federal court, where they were transferred to the AFFF MDL. Plaintiffs have filed motions to remand most of these cases back to state court. State Attorneys General Litigation Related to PFAS As previously reported, several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against 3M and other defendants related to alleged PFAS contamination. A number of these lawsuits are now pending in the federal MDL in South Carolina regarding AFFF, described further below, and there are also multiple state attorneys general lawsuits that are proceeding outside the AFFF MDL. Several state attorneys general have also filed multiple lawsuits against 3M and other defendants. In general, preliminary judicial proceedings evaluate whether these lawsuits should proceed in state or federal court and inside the AFFF MDL or outside of the AFFF MDL. Cases at times are moved to the AFFF MDL or remanded to another venue, such as state court. The lawsuits generally seek on a state-wide basis: injunctive relief, investigative and remedial work, compensatory damages, natural resource damages, consumer protection civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and, where available, punitive damages related to the states’ response to PFAS contamination. Currently in the AFFF MDL, state attorneys general lawsuits have been brought against 3M on behalf of the people of the states of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands. New Jersey. In March 2019, the New Jersey Attorney General filed two actions against 3M on behalf of New Jersey and certain of its departments regarding alleged PFAS discharges at two facilities: the Chambers Works facility in Salem County (“Chambers Works”) and the Parlin facility in Middlesex County. Although 3M has never owned or operated either facility, New Jersey alleged that 3M supplied PFAS to the facilities, which was then discharged into the environment. In May 2025, 3M agreed to a proposed Judicial Consent Order with the State (the “New Jersey Settlement”). The New Jersey Settlement is subject to public notice and comment and court approval. If the court approves the Settlement, New Jersey and its departments would agree to dismiss with prejudice the two actions described above and the State’s case against 3M pending in the AFFF MDL. In addition, the New Jersey Settlement resolved broader statewide PFAS claims that the State and its departments have, or may in the future have, against 3M, as more fully described in the proposed Judicial Consent Order. The New Jersey Settlement is not an admission of liability. If the court approves the New Jersey Settlement and all conditions are met, 3M will pay the State up to $450 million. 3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $281 million in the second quarter of 2025 related to the New Jersey Settlement. The charge reflected the present value of the $400 million amount 3M expects to pay, discounted at an estimated 5.0% blended interest rate at time of proposed settlement. The New Jersey Settlement includes payments with a present value of $207 million for Chambers Works and other elements of the settlement beginning in 2026 over 8 years and payments with a present value of $74 million for existing and future PFAS-related claims by the State of New Jersey starting in 2030 and running through 2050. The actual amount that 3M will pay will be determined in part by how much 3M is ultimately obligated to pay under the PWS Settlement, as discussed elsewhere in this Note 17. 3M may also receive certain credits towards its payment obligations under the New Jersey Settlement based on other contingencies. Additional state attorneys general lawsuits that are proceeding outside the AFFF MDL are described below. New Hampshire. In May 2019, the New Hampshire Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state’s drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. The other lawsuit is proceeding with discovery in state court following a March 2025 ruling by the federal court of appeals denying 3M’s appeal of the order remanding the case to state court. Vermont. In June 2019, the Vermont Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state’s drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. The other lawsuit is proceeding in state court, pending a ruling by the federal court of appeals on 3M's appeal of the order remanding the case to state court. The federal court of appeals held a hearing on 3M's appeal in February 2025. The state court has set a November 7, 2025, trial-ready date for the matter. Illinois. In March 2022, the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against 3M alleging contamination of the state's natural resources by PFAS compounds disposed of by, or discharged, or emitted from 3M's Cordova plant. The complaint requests monetary damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, a testing program, and a public outreach and information sharing program. In August 2024, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the order remanding the case to state court. In April 2025, the state court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by 3M. The remaining claims in the case are proceeding with discovery. Maine. In March 2023, the Maine Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state's drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. The other lawsuit is proceeding in state court, pending a ruling by the federal court of appeals on 3M's appeal of the order remanding the case to state court. The federal court of appeals set a hearing on 3M's appeal for October 2025. The state court dismissed the state's strict liability and trespass claims but denied the remainder of 3M's motion to dismiss in December 2024. The case is proceeding with discovery on the remaining claims. Maryland. In May 2023, the Maryland Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state's drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. In July 2023, 3M removed the other case to federal court. The State filed a motion to remand, which was granted in February 2024. 3M filed a notice of appeal from the remand order in March 2024. This appeal was consolidated with 3M’s appeal of a remand order in the South Carolina Attorney General case, as described below. In March 2025, the federal court of appeals vacated the remand orders and returned the cases to the district courts for further proceedings. In May 2025, the federal court of appeals denied the state's petition for rehearing en banc. South Carolina. In August and October 2023, the South Carolina Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state's drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. In November 2023, 3M removed the other case directly to the AFFF MDL in federal court. The State filed a motion to remand, which was granted in February 2024. 3M filed a notice of appeal from the remand order in March 2024. This appeal was consolidated with 3M’s appeal of a remand order in the Maryland Attorney General case, as described above. In March 2025, the federal court of appeals vacated the remand order and returned the cases to the district courts for further proceedings. In May 2025, the federal court of appeals denied the state's petition for rehearing en banc. Connecticut. In January 2024, the Connecticut Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state's drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. Following 3M's removal of the other lawsuit to federal court, the federal court remanded that other lawsuit to state court. 3M filed a notice of appeal from the remand order in December 2024 and a motion to dismiss in January 2025. Texas. In May 2023, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit alleging contamination of the state’s drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. That lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. In December 2024, the Texas Attorney General filed a second complaint against 3M, DuPont and Chemours in Texas state court alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act in connection with the advertising, marketing, and sale of PFAS-containing consumer products. In January 2025, 3M removed the case to federal court, and the state has sought remand of the matter to state court. In February 2025, 3M filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In addition, the Company is in discussions with several state attorneys general and agencies, responding to information and other requests, including entering into tolling agreements, relating to PFAS matters and exploring potential resolution of some of the matters raised. Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Litigation As of June 30, 2025, more than 7,800 lawsuits alleging injuries or damages from PFAS contamination or exposure allegedly caused by AFFF use are pending against 3M (along with other defendants) in various state and federal courts, along with purported unfiled personal injury claims. As further described below, a vast majority of these pending cases are in a federal MDL court in South Carolina. Additional AFFF cases continue to be filed in or transferred to the MDL. Claims in the MDL are asserted by individuals, public water systems, putative class members, state and territorial sovereigns, and other entities. Plaintiffs seek a variety of forms of relief in cases in the MDL, including, where applicable, damages for personal injury, property damage, water treatment costs, medical monitoring, natural resource damages, and punitive damages. 3M also continues to defend certain AFFF cases that remain in state court and is in discussions with pre-suit claimants for possible resolutions where appropriate. In general, preliminary judicial proceedings evaluate whether these lawsuits should proceed in the AFFF MDL or outside of the AFFF MDL, with some cases being moved to the AFFF MDL or remanded to another venue, such as state court. AFFF MDL and Water System Cases In December 2018, the JPML granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to be managed in an MDL proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. Over the past six years, the parties in the MDL have conducted and are continuing to conduct ongoing master discovery and discovery regarding specific groups of cases, including public water suppliers, personal injury, and attorneys general cases, among other types of cases. In September 2022, the court issued an order denying defendants' MDL-wide summary judgment motions on the government contractor defense, which defense can be presented to a jury at future trials. On June 22, 2023, 3M entered into a class-action settlement to resolve a wide range of drinking water claims by public water suppliers in the United States (the “PWS Settlement”), which was approved by the court in March 2024 and took effect in May 2024. Eligible class members are United States public water suppliers as defined in the PWS Settlement. The PWS Settlement provides that 3M does not admit any liability or wrongdoing and does not waive any defenses. Following the PWS Settlement, a number of cases filed by PWS are still pending. Approximately 20 of these cases were brought by PWS class members with respect to which the parties are in the process of implementing the dismissal of released claims in accordance with the court's final approval order. The remaining cases are brought by PWS that did not participate in the PWS settlement, which includes cases pending in both the MDL and various state courts. 3M will pay $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion in total to resolve the claims released by the PWS Settlement. 3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $10.3 billion in the second quarter of 2023. The charge reflected the present value (discounted at an estimated 5.2% interest rate at time of proposed settlement) of the expected $12.5 billion nominal value of 3M’s payments under the PWS Settlement. The PWS Settlement, as amended to include payments to certain other water providers, calls for 3M to make payments from 2024 through 2036. The actual amounts that 3M will pay will be determined in part by which class members that do not have a positive test result for the presence of PFAS in their drinking water (as defined by the PWS Settlement) as of the date of the PWS Settlement and those that receive such a test result by the end of 2025. In December 2023, the parties selected an initial set of 25 plaintiffs for potential personal injury bellwether cases. In March 2024, the Court issued an order establishing a process for addressing most personal injury claims for diseases not included in the initial set of 25 cases and four other diseases, which has resulted in the dismissal without prejudice of thousands of personal injury claims. The process includes a tolling provision for certain dismissed claims filed in or transferred to the MDL by April 24, 2024. In July 2024, the court selected 9 out of the 25 bellwether cases to undergo additional discovery, including expert discovery. In January 2025, the Court issued an order setting the first bellwether personal injury trial to begin on October 20, 2025. In May 2025, the Court decided that the trial would involve one or more of three kidney cancer plaintiffs. On June 20, the Court conducted a "Science Day" regarding liver and thyroid cancers. At the Court's direction, the parties continue to negotiate processes for bellwethers of certain other personal injury claims. The Court continues to encourage the parties to settle matters and 3M is participating in Court-ordered settlement discussions facilitated by a Court-appointed mediator in advance of the first bellwether personal injury trial scheduled to begin on October 20, 2025. In November 2024, the Court issued an order directing the parties to work together to develop a process to select approximately 15 sites allegedly contaminated with PFAS from AFFF use for the purpose of conducting focused product identification discovery. The parties agreed to a case management order adopted by the Court in January 2025 and submitted 12 proposed sites to the Court in March 2025, which the Court approved in April 2025. The parties are now conducting six months of product-identification discovery regarding those sites and will report back to the Court. Other AFFF Cases In June 2019, several subsidiaries of Valero Energy Corporation, an independent petroleum refiner, filed eight AFFF cases against 3M and other defendants, including DuPont/Chemours, National Foam, Buckeye Fire Equipment, and Kidde-Fenwal, in various state courts. Plaintiffs seek damages that allegedly have been or will be incurred in investigating and remediating PFAS contamination at their properties and replacing or disposing of AFFF products containing long-chain PFAS compounds. Two of these cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL, and one case was voluntarily dismissed. The four cases that remain pending in state courts are stayed by agreement of the parties. The Company is aware of other AFFF suits outside the AFFF MDL in which the Company has been named as a defendant. 3M anticipates seeking to have most of these cases removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL; however, several cases are expected to remain pending in state courts, including a case in Illinois state court brought by an oil refinery worker alleging harm caused by PFAS and other chemicals. In that case (Bannister), 3M filed a motion to dismiss in April 2025, which resulted in the plaintiff being granted leave to amend her complaint. The matter currently is scheduled for trial in September 2026. Other PFAS-related Product and Environmental Litigation Numerous other PFAS-related suits naming 3M as a defendant have been filed outside the MDL in courts across the country. The Company anticipates seeking to have most of the cases that relate to AFFF removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. However, some of these cases are likely to remain in state or federal courts outside the MDL. Since 2017, 3M has been served with individual and putative class action complaints in various state and federal courts alleging, among other things, that 3M’s customers’ improper disposal of PFOA and PFOS resulted in the contamination of groundwater, surface water, or biosolids that were then land-applied. The plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that 3M failed to warn its customers or the plaintiffs themselves about the hazards of improper disposal of the product. They also generally allege that contaminated groundwater has caused various injuries, including personal injury, loss of use and enjoyment of their properties, diminished property values, investigation costs, and remediation costs. Several companies have been sued along with 3M, including, but not limited to, DuPont, Chemours, and various carpet, paper and textile manufacturers. As described immediately below, some of these cases have been brought by drinking water providers that opted out of the PWS Settlement. In Alabama, 3M, together with multiple co-defendants, is defending several court cases brought by municipal water utilities. The plaintiffs in one of these cases (Shelby/Talladega Counties) are water utilities alleging that carpet manufacturers in Georgia improperly discharged PFAS into the surface water and groundwater, contaminating drinking water supplies of cities located downstream along the Coosa River in Alabama. The case has a trial date in February 2026. 3M removed this case to federal court and a motion to remand remains pending. The city of Albertville, Alabama filed suit for alleged contamination of the Tennessee River (upstream of 3M’s Decatur facility) by a carpet manufacturer in Alabama. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss in May 2024. Oral argument on the motion was held in April 2025 and the motion remains pending. The city of Mobile alleges that 3M and other defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination of the city’s water supply resulting from PFAS released by a local landfill. In October 2024, the Court granted 3M’s and several other defendants’ motions to dismiss. Claims against one local defendant remain pending, which prevents the motion to dismiss ruling from becoming final. The Town of Pine Hill, Alabama filed suit alleging that PFAS discharges from paper mills currently owned by International Paper have contaminated its water supply. 3M removed the case to federal court. In March 2025, the district court ordered the case remanded. 3M has filed a notice of appeal. The City of Irondale, Alabama filed suit alleging PFAS contamination of its water supply due to industrial discharges from several users of PFAS in different industries, including alleged customers of 3M. 3M removed the case to federal court and a motion to remand remains pending. In May 2025, the City of Opelika, Alabama sued 3M and numerous other defendants alleging that releases by users of PFAS in carpet, textile, and paper manufacturing operations upstream of its drinking water intake have contaminated its water supply. 3M removed the case to federal court and has moved to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL. 3M’s transfer motion and Plaintiff’s motion to remand is pending. All other deadlines are stayed until the remand is decided. In May 2025 the City of Foley, Alabama sued 3M and others alleging that releases by users of PFAS in local manufacturing operations contaminated groundwater used for drinking water supplies. 3M filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 16, 2025. 3M is also defending a mass action filed in Alabama in June 2024 by hundreds of individual customers of the Water Works and Sewer Board for the City of Gadsden, Alabama, alleging emotional distress and property damage related to PFAS contamination of their drinking water. 3M removed the case to federal court, where the case is proceeding through discovery. In Georgia, 3M, together with other defendants, is also defending a putative class action in federal court, in which plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a class of individual ratepayers in Summerville, Georgia who allege their water supply was contaminated by PFAS discharged from a textile mill. The City of Summerville intervened in the case and also brought claims against 3M and other defendants. Briefing on dispositive motions is underway and no trial date has been set. Another case currently pending in federal court in Georgia was brought by individuals asserting PFAS contamination by 3M and other defendants and seeks economic damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of Rome and Floyd County water subscribers. Class certification has been fully briefed, and the plaintiff's injunctive relief claims were recently dismissed. Plaintiff's claims for economic damages related to alleged increases in their water rates due to the presence of PFAS remain pending. No trial date has been set. In February 2024, two landowners in Gordon County, Georgia sued 3M and other defendants for alleged contamination of their properties from wastewater treatment sludge allegedly containing PFAS from nearby carpet manufacturing operations. One of 3M’s co-defendants, the City of Calhoun, Georgia, filed a cross claim against 3M and other defendants alleging that biosolids from its wastewater treatment plant were contaminated with PFAS that has migrated into its water supply. In June 2024, a related lawsuit was filed on behalf of other property owners receiving biosolids from the same municipal water treatment plant. Motions to dismiss have been denied, and these claims are in active discovery. In January 2025, private plaintiffs filed lawsuit against 3M and other defendants in Gordon County, Georgia alleging similar PFAS contamination on their property. All of these cases remain pending. In July 2024, the City of Lyerly sued 3M and other defendants, alleging that discharges from local carpet mills contaminated the City's water supply. 3M's motion to dismiss was denied in March 2025 and discovery is underway. In November 2024, Mohawk Industries, a carpet manufacturer, filed a lawsuit in Whitfield County, Georgia against 3M, DuPont, and Daikin alleging various counts of tort and contract liability, including fraud, related to sales of fluorochemicals. Motions to dismiss have been briefed and argued and remain pending. Discovery in the case is proceeding. In December 2024, Dalton Utilities, located in Dalton, Georgia, filed a suit against 3M and other defendants seeking clean-up costs under CERCLA for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Dalton Land Application System, which is a field that has received carpet mill effluent pursuant to a Georgia Environmental Protection Division permit since the late 1980s. Briefing on motions to dismiss is ongoing. In December 2024, Murray County, Georgia filed suit against 3M and other defendants seeking clean-up costs for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Murray County landfill and other locations throughout the County. 3M filed a motion to dismiss, which has been fully briefed. In January 2025, Catoosa County, Georgia and Gordon County, Georgia filed substantively identical complaints alleging similar PFAS impacts as Murray County related to county-owned landfills. 3M filed a motion to dismiss, which has been fully briefed. In February 2025, the City of Savannah, Georgia sued 3M and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, alleging PFAS discharges upstream of its surface water drinking intake have contaminated its water supply. 3M removed the case to federal court, where plaintiff has filed a motion to remand. 3M filed a motion to transfer the case to the MDL, which was granted in June 2025. There are no current responsive pleading deadlines. In April 2025, the City of Chatsworth, Georgia sued 3M and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, alleging PFAS discharges have contaminated its water supply. 3M's responsive pleading deadline is August 8, 2025. In April 2025, a private landowner and an environmental organization (Coosa River Basin Initiative) sued 3M and others, including carpet makers and Dalton Utilities, for property damages and injunctive relief related to the Dalton Utilities Land Application System. Dalton Utilities filed a motion to stay the case in favor of its pending action in the same district court, and briefing on that issue is ongoing. All other deadlines are stayed until the stay is decided. In April 2025, private landowners in Chattooga County, Georgia sued 3M and multiple other defendants, including a textile mill, alleging that PFAS discharges to the Town of Trion, Georgia wastewater treatment plant made its way to sludge that was deposited on plaintiffs’ properties via land application for years. 3M's responsive pleading deadline is August 11, 2025. In June 2025, private landowners in northwest Georgia filed three cases against 3M and other defendants alleging PFAS from nearby carpet making facilities has contaminated soil, water, and indoor dust at their properties. 3M's responsive pleading deadline is July 24, 2025. In June 2025, Walker County, Georgia and the City of Chickamauga, Georgia sued 3M and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, alleging that the carpet manufacturers discharged PFAS into the public sewer system, which caused it to enter plaintiffs’ drinking water. 3M's responsive pleading deadline is July 20, 2025. In Delaware, 3M, together with several co-defendants, has been defending one putative class action brought by individuals alleging PFAS contamination of their water supply resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities. In August 2023, the court dismissed all but plaintiffs' negligence claim. In March 2025, the court granted 3M's motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claim. In New Jersey, 3M, together with several co-defendants, is also defending numerous cases in federal court brought by individuals with private drinking water wells near certain DuPont and Solvay facilities that were allegedly supplied with PFAS by 3M. 3M settled for an immaterial amount with the plaintiffs in certain cases that sought property damages, and for those cases requiring court approval, such approval was granted in May 2025. Plaintiffs in the remaining individual cases allege personal injuries to themselves or to their adult children. In addition, 3M and several other defendants were named in a complaint filed in New Jersey state court in May 2025 by individuals who resided near Solvay’s facility and who allege personal injuries to themselves or to their children from PFAS exposure. 3M has not been served yet. 3M and Middlesex Water Company are defending a putative class action filed in New Jersey federal court in November 2021 by individuals who received drinking water from Middlesex Water Company that was allegedly contaminated with PFOA. In May 2022, Middlesex Water Company filed a third-party complaint against the Company in New Jersey state court in a putative class action brought by customers of the water company, seeking contribution and indemnity from the Company. In November 2023, Middlesex Water Company dismissed its third-party complaint against the Company in connection with the settlement of Middlesex Water Company's separate action against 3M. The parties to the New Jersey federal and state court class actions have agreed to settle these cases for an immaterial amount, subject to court approval. In March 2023, a personal injury lawsuit was filed against 3M and Middlesex Water Company by another Middlesex Water Company customer. The case is now proceeding in discovery. In South Carolina, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in South Carolina state court against 3M and other defendants in March 2022. The lawsuit alleges property damage and personal injuries from contamination from PFAS compounds used and disposed of at the textile plant. The complaint seeks remedies including damages, punitive damages, and medical monitoring. The case has been removed to federal court. In August of 2024, a companion personal injury case was filed in South Carolina. 3M removed this case to federal court. Discovery is proceeding in both cases. In January 2025, eight water systems that opted out of the PWS Settlement filed complaints in South Carolina state court against 3M and other defendants, alleging PFAS contamination from a variety of industrial sources. 3M removed all eight cases into the AFFF MDL in federal court in February 2025. In April 2025, plaintiffs filed motions to remand all eight cases to state court. In May and June 2025, nine additional water providers that opted out of the PWS Settlement filed complaints against only 3M in South Carolina federal court outside the AFFF MDL, alleging PFAS contamination from a variety of industrial sources. In June 2025, 3M identified the cases as related to the AFFF MDL. 3M has not yet responded to the complaints. In Massachusetts, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in August 2022 in state court against 3M and several other defendants alleging PFAS contamination from waste generated by local paper manufacturing facilities that was subsequently incorporated into biosolids. The lawsuit alleges property damage and seeks medical monitoring on behalf of plaintiffs within the Town of Westminster. This case was removed to federal court, where it was consolidated with a previously-filed federal case involving similar allegations and claims against 3M’s co-defendants. In February and March 2024, 3M and the remaining defendants answered the complaint and filed cross claims against one another. The case is now proceeding in discovery and class certification. In April 2025, the class action was consolidated with another class action brought by the same plaintiffs against different defendants. Class certification proceedings in the original action are stayed until April 2026 to allow the cases to proceed to a single class certification hearing, which is expected in the third quarter of 2026. No trial date has been set. In October 2024, one of the former plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a separate suit in Massachusetts state court against 3M and other defendants alleging PFAS-related personal injury as well as property damage to a private well. 3M filed a motion to dismiss that case in June 2025, which remains pending. In March 2025, another resident of Westminster, Massachusetts filed an additional suit against 3M and other defendants alleging PFAS-related personal injury. 3M has not yet responded to that complaint. In Maine, a group of landowners filed a second amended complaint in October 2022 in federal district court, adding 3M and several other alleged chemical suppliers as defendants in a case previously filed against several paper mills, alleging PFAS contamination from waste generated by the paper mills that was then incorporated into biosolids. The lawsuit seeks to recover for alleged property damage. In March 2023, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint limiting the scope of their claims to allegations pertaining to one paper mill and three defendants that allegedly supplied PFAS-containing products to that mill, including 3M. In October 2023, the court denied 3M's motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint in September 2024, which removed all personal injury and medical monitoring claims, dismissed certain plaintiffs, and added property damage claims for certain new plaintiffs asserting only property damage claims. The case is now proceeding in discovery. In Wisconsin, in August 2023, 3M and other defendants were named as defendants in a putative class action brought in federal court by several residents of Oneida County alleging property damage resulting from PFAS contamination they attribute to waste generated from the operations of a paper mill in Rhinelander, Wisconsin that was then incorporated into biosolids. 3M’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in June 2025. The case is proceeding through discovery. The court has set a trial date in June 2027. In December 2024, 3M was named as a defendant in a putative class action brought in federal court by several private well owners near 3M's Wausau Greystone quarry seeking to recover for property damages and medical monitoring related to alleged PFAS contamination. The case also includes (non-class) personal injury claims on behalf of select plaintiffs. 3M filed a motion to dismiss this case in February 2025 and filed a motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL in March 2025. The case was stayed pending a ruling by the JPML on 3M's motion for transfer, which was denied in June 2025. In Illinois, 3M has been sued in three separate actions by individual plaintiffs alleging personal injury and/or property damage claims relating to alleged PFAS contamination from 3M’s Cordova facility. The earliest of these suits, filed in November 2023, has been removed to federal court and is currently stayed. The remaining two cases were filed in September 2024 and 3M has removed these cases to federal court. 3M filed a motion to transfer all three cases to the AFFF MDL. In April 2025, the JPML denied transfer of the earliest of the cases (Noland) to the AFFF MDL and granted the transfer of the other two cases to the AFFF MDL. In May 2025, the Noland case was remanded to state court. In Missouri, in April 2024, 3M was added as a defendant to a pending putative class action brought by individuals alleging PFAS contamination of their properties and drinking water from metal plating operations in southeastern Missouri. In October 2024, the court denied 3M's motion to dismiss. The court has set a trial date in May 2027. In Connecticut, in June 2024, 3M and numerous other defendants were sued in a putative class action brought by individual firefighters and several firefighter unions, alleging exposure to PFAS from certain turnout gear worn by the class members. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in April 2025, and 3M filed a motion to dismiss in June 2025. In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, were named in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio brought by the named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to PFAS chemicals through his use of firefighting foam, purporting to represent a putative class of all U.S. individuals with detectable levels of PFAS in their blood. In March 2022, the court certified a class of "[i]ndividuals subject to the laws of Ohio, who have 0.05 [ppt] of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum." In November 2023, the Sixth Circuit issued an order vacating the class certification decision and remanding the case with instructions that the district court dismiss the case and later denied a motion for rehearing en banc. In March 2024, the district court vacated the class certification order and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. In June 2024, 3M was named as a defendant in a new putative nationwide class action by the same named plaintiff who filed the Ohio suit that was dismissed and is described above. The new suit was brought against only 3M and DuPont entities and seeks to establish a putative class of anyone subject to the laws of Ohio or subject to the law of states that recognize the claims for relief filed by plaintiffs with blood serum levels of 2 ppb or more of PFOS and PFOA (combined) manufactured by defendants. 3M was served with the suit in July 2024 and subsequently filed a motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL, which was denied in October 2024. In October 2024, 3M filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which motion is pending. In Virginia, in August 2024, 3M was named as a defendant in a case alleging that plaintiff’s decedent, a civilian firefighter, died from cancer allegedly caused by exposure to PFAS from turnout gear. A co-defendant removed the case to federal court, where plaintiff has moved to remand the case to state court. The plaintiff's motion to remand remains pending. In April 2025, 3M was named as a defendant in a similar case in Virginia, which was removed to federal court by another defendant. In June 2025, 3M was served in a third similar case currently pending in Virginia state court. In Minnesota, in August 2024, 3M, DuPont, and Chemours were named in a putative nationwide class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased carpeting treated with PFAS-containing products before January 1, 2020. The lawsuit alleges claims under RICO and state consumer protection, product liability, and nuisance laws. 3M filed a motion to dismiss in November 2024. Oral argument on 3M's motion was heard in April 2025. In Minnesota, in May 2025, 3M. DuPont, and Chemours were named in a putative nationwide class action in federal court brought on behalf of all municipalities and governmental entities who purchased fire fighter personal protective equipment from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the protective equipment. In Pennsylvania, in March 2025, 3M, DuPont, and the designers, manufacturers, and distributors of AstroTurf were named in a complaint filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas by former Philadelphia Phillies players alleging personal injury claims allegedly resulting from exposure to PFAS and ethylene oxide in AstroTurf at Veterans Stadium. Plaintiffs’ alleged exposures date back to the 1970s. In June 2025, 3M filed its preliminary objections. In June 2025, 3M and several other entities were named as defendants in a case filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas by a firefighter alleging that his cancer was caused by exposure to PFAS from turnout gear. In Montana, in April 2025, 3M, DuPont, and Chemours were named in a putative nationwide class action in Montana District Court, brought on behalf of all entities who bought turnout gear from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the turnout gear. The lawsuit alleges claims under RICO and state conspiracy, product liability, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices laws. In New York, in May 2025, the owner of a tree nursery located in Hoosick Falls filed suit against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Honeywell International Inc., and DuPont seeking to recover for property damage allegedly resulting from PFOA contamination that plaintiff attributes to a nearby fabric coating facility. In Michigan, 3M previously settled claims brought by Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine) related to Wolverine’s alleged use of 3M Scotchgard in its shoe manufacturing operations. 3M continues to incur liabilities for immaterial amounts pursuant to the settlement agreement. Other PFAS-related Matters Decatur, Alabama Grand Jury Matter. The Company operates under a 2009 consent order issued under the federal TSCA (the “2009 TSCA consent order”) for the manufacture and use of two perfluorinated materials (FBSA and FBSEE) at the Decatur site that prohibits release of these materials into “the waters of the United States.” In March 2019, the Company halted the manufacture, processing, and use of these materials at the site upon learning that these materials may have been released from certain specified processes at the Decatur site into the Tennessee River. In April 2019, the Company voluntarily disclosed the releases to the U.S. EPA and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). During June and July 2019, the Company took steps to fully control the aforementioned processes by capturing all wastewater produced by the processes and treating all air emissions. These processes are no longer in use. As previously reported, in December 2019, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama for documents related to, among other matters: (1) the Company’s compliance with the 2009 TSCA Consent Order; and (2) unpermitted discharges to the Tennessee River from its Decatur facility. The Company continues to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the EPA with respect to these issues In parallel, the Company continues to engage with the EPA, ADEM, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) related to potential civil claims arising out of the discharges at issue in the above-described grand jury investigation, as well as with respect to certain discharges of PFAS from the Cottage Grove and Cordova facilities, which are described below. Other Regulatory. The Company is authorized to discharge wastewater from its Decatur plant pursuant to an NPDES permit issued by ADEM. In June 2019, as previously reported, the Company voluntarily disclosed to the EPA and ADEM that it had included incorrect values in certain of its monthly and quarterly reports. The Company has submitted the corrected values to both the EPA and ADEM. In addition, as previously reported, the Company discovered it had not fully characterized its PFAS discharge in its NPDES permit. In September 2019, the Company disclosed the matter to the EPA and ADEM and temporarily idled certain manufacturing processes at 3M Decatur. An application to add the additional PFAS to its NPDES permit was submitted to ADEM and the Company installed additional wastewater treatment controls to address PFAS. The wastewater controls are currently being upgraded and optimized. ADEM has not acted on the request to modify the NPDES permit. 3M and ADEM agreed to the terms of an interim consent order in July 2020 to cover all PFAS-related wastewater discharges and air emissions from the Company’s Decatur facility. Under the interim consent order, the Company’s principal obligations include commitments related to (i) future ongoing site operations such as (a) providing notices or reports and performing various analytical and characterization studies and (b) future capital improvements; and (ii) remediation activities, including on-site and off-site investigations and studies. Obligations related to ongoing future site operations under the Consent Order or any further investigations may involve additional operating costs and capital expenditures over multiple years. Cordova, Illinois The Company is authorized to discharge wastewater from its Cordova plant pursuant to an NPDES permit issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”). As previously reported, in November 2019, the Company disclosed to the EPA, and, in January 2020, disclosed to the IEPA, that the Company's NPDES permit for the Cordova facility did not include all PFAS that had been identified in its water discharge. As noted above, 3M continues to engage with EPA and IEPA on potential civil claims related to these discharges. An application to add the additional PFAS to the plant's permit was submitted to IEPA, and the Company has now brought on-line and continues to optimize a wastewater treatment specifically designed to treat PFAS. IEPA has not acted on the pending application. In November 2022, the Company entered into an Administrative Consent Order under the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA") that requires the Company to continue to sample and survey private and public drinking water wells within the vicinity of the Cordova facility, provide treatment of private water wells within a three-mile radius of the Cordova facility, and to provide alternate treatment/supply for the Camanche, Iowa public drinking water system. The Company continues to work with EPA and the City of Camanche as it implements the SDWA Administrative Consent Order. In January 2025, the Company reached an agreement with the EPA on the terms of a consent order under RCRA, that requires the Company to delineate PFAS in soil and groundwater at the Cordova plant and a surrounding area that extends up to 1/2 mile from the plant site. The order also requires collecting a specified number of soil and groundwater samples at up to 80 locations in the area extending 5 miles from the plant. Cottage Grove, Minnesota The Company is authorized to discharge wastewater from its Cottage Grove plant pursuant to an NPDES permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). As previously reported, the Company discovered it had not fully characterized its PFAS discharge in its NPDES permit for the Cottage Grove facility and, in March 2020, disclosed this matter to the EPA and MPCA. As noted above, 3M continues to engage with EPA and MPCA on potential civil claims related to these discharges. The Company submitted an application to add the additional PFAS to its NPDES permit. The Company is currently installing a new wastewater treatment system to address PFAS. The Company continues to work with the MPCA pursuant to the terms of an ongoing and previously disclosed May 2007 Settlement Agreement and Consent Order ("SACO") to address the presence of certain PFAS compounds in the soil and groundwater at former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury) and at the Company’s manufacturing facility at Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Under this agreement, the Company’s principal obligations include (i) evaluating releases of certain PFAS compounds from these sites and proposing response actions, including actions to provide treatment or alternative drinking water upon identifying any level exceeding a Health Based Value ("HBV") or Health Risk Limit ("HRL") (i.e., the amount of a chemical in drinking water determined by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to be safe for human consumption over a lifetime) for certain PFAS compounds for which a HBV and/or HRL exists; (ii) remediating identified sources of other PFAS compounds at these sites that are not controlled by actions to remediate PFOA and PFOS; and (iii) sharing information with the MPCA about certain perfluorinated compounds. In January 2024, the MDH issued updated, more stringent, HBVs for PFOA and PFOS. In October 2024, MDH proposed HRLs for PFOA and PFOS. 3M continues to evaluate any potential impact of these developments on its obligations under the SACO. The Company also continues to implement the previously disclosed 2008 remedial decision adopted by MPCA for the Woodbury and Oakdale sites and the 2009 remedial decision adopted by MPCA for the Cottage Grove site. In January 2021, MPCA issue a Notice of Violation that included measures requiring the Company to address the presence of PFAS in wastewater and to undertake certain facility improvements related to its wastewater discharge system. The Company continues to work with MPCA to implement the measures in the Notice of Violation. In June 2022, MPCA directed that the Company address the presence of PFAS in its stormwater discharge from the Cottage Grove facility. The Company worked with MPCA to develop a plan to address its stormwater, which is embodied in an order issued by MPCA in December 2022, which the Company is working to implement. In May 2025, MPCA issued a final NPDES permit for the Cottage Grove plant, with an effective date of June 1, 2025. The permit includes ultra-low effluent limits for certain PFAS, some of which are below current limits of quantification for those compounds. The permit also includes low, but measurable "compliance limits" for those same compounds that are deemed to demonstrate compliance with the permit. In June 2025, 3M filed a notice of appeal challenging several elements of the permit. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the appeal. It is possible that the outcome of the appeal or future permit amendments will result in discharge limits that will require additional actions to reduce legacy sources of PFAS or require additional capital or operational expenditures in order to meet such limits. If the Company is unable to meet discharge limits, such development could have a significant adverse impact on 3M's normal operations and the Company's businesses that receive products and other materials from the Cottage Grove facility, some of which may not be available or in similar quantities from other 3M facilities, which could in turn impact these businesses' ability to fulfill supply obligations to their customers. Minnesota 2018 Natural Resources Defense Settlement As previously disclosed, in February 2018, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $897 million, inclusive of legal fees and other related obligations, in the first quarter of 2018 with respect to the settlement of a matter brought by the State of Minnesota involving the presence of PFAS in the groundwater, surface water, fish or other aquatic life, and sediments in the state. The settlement created a fund to enhance drinking water quality in the East Metropolitan Area of Minneapolis-St. Paul. The projects approved by MPCA drawing on the fund must be reasonable and necessary. If the fund is depleted, municipalities could seek additional funding from 3M. MPCA and 3M disagree that certain projects MPCA has proposed are reasonable and necessary and otherwise satisfy the conditions created by the 2018 settlement. MPCA and 3M also disagree over whether certain projected long-term operations and maintenance and other expenses that will not be paid for many years should be factored into determining when the fund is depleted. 3M initiated the mediation process in February of 2025 under the settlement to address these disagreements. That process remains ongoing. Hutchinson, Minnesota MPCA issued to the Company a Notice of Violation in March 2023, alleging that the Company is discharging stormwater containing PFAS at the 3M’s facility in Hutchinson, Minnesota. The Company is working with MPCA regarding the allegations in the Notice of Violation. The Company continues to work with relevant federal and state agencies (including EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice, state environmental agencies and state attorneys general) as it responds to information, inspection, and other requests from the agencies. As noted above, the Company is in negotiations with EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Alabama, Illinois, and Minnesota state environmental agencies to address claims arising under the CWA and the TSCA related to the Company’s plants in those states. The Company cannot predict at this time the outcomes of resolving these compliance matters, what actions may be taken by the regulatory agencies or the potential consequences to the Company. Wausau, Wisconsin In August 2024, the Company received a request for information from EPA under CERCLA seeking information and documents, including regarding the use and disposal of PFAS at its Greystone facility and its downtown Wausau facility. 3M has provided the EPA with information responsive to that request. In March 2025, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) issued a letter to 3M stating that it has determined there has been a release of hazardous substances from the Greystone facility based on PFAS detected in groundwater, and ordering 3M to submit a work plan for investigation. A site investigation work plan, which describes the initial scope of sampling to take place at the facility, was submitted to the WDNR in June 2025 and is currently under agency review. Depending on the results of that investigation, the WDNR may require 3M to conduct remediation at the site. Cynthiana, Kentucky In May 2025, 3M’s Cynthiana facility received a subpoena and a letter from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. The subpoena seeks information regarding PFAS and alleged hazardous substances used or released at the site. The letter directs 3M to develop a site characterization plan to investigate suspected PFAS releases at the site. 3M is engaged with the regulatory authority on these issues. Other Environmental Matters In July 2018, the Company, along with more than 120 other companies, was served with a complaint seeking cost recovery and contribution towards the cleaning up of approximately eight miles of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey. The plaintiff, Occidental Chemical Corporation, alleges that it agreed to design and pay the estimated $165 million cost to remove and cap sediment containing eight chemicals of concern, including PCBs and dioxins. The complaint seeks to spread those costs among the defendants, including the Company. The Company’s involvement in the case relates to its past use of two commercial drum conditioning facilities in New Jersey. Whether, and to what extent, the Company may be required to contribute to the costs at issue in the case remains to be determined. In January 2025, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the Cottage Grove facility based on a 2021 EPA RCRA inspection. The NOV was received by the facility in February 2025. In the NOV, the EPA asserts that during the inspection, it observed improper management of hazardous waste related to containers and tanks and improper recordkeeping. Several issues identified by EPA were corrected at the time of the inspection and the Company responded to the NOV in March 2025. In July 2024, the Company received a Violation Notice from the IEPA alleging regulatory violations related to certain air emissions of volatile organic material at the Cordova facility. The Company has responded to the Violation Notice. For environmental matters and litigation described above, unless otherwise described below, no liability has been recorded as the Company believes liability in those matters is not probable and reasonably estimable and the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss at this time. The Company’s environmental liabilities are described below. Environmental Liabilities The Company periodically examines whether the contingent liabilities related to the environmental matters and litigation described above are probable and reasonably estimable based on experience and ongoing developments in those matters, including discussions regarding negotiated resolutions. During the first six months of 2025, primarily as a result of the New Jersey Settlement and interest accretion on the PWS Settlement, the Company increased its accrual for PFAS-related other environmental liabilities by approximately $0.4 billion and made related payments of $1.8 billion. As of June 30, 2025, the Company had recorded liabilities of $7.4 billion for “other environmental liabilities.” These amounts are reflected in the consolidated balance sheet within other current liabilities ($0.7 billion) and other liabilities ($6.7 billion). The accruals represent the Company’s estimate of the probable loss in connection with the environmental matters and PFAS-related matters and litigation described above. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the established accruals at this time. As of June 30, 2025, the Company had recorded liabilities of $38 million for estimated non-PFAS related “environmental remediation” costs to clean up, treat, or remove hazardous substances at current or former 3M manufacturing or third-party sites. The Company evaluates available facts with respect to each individual site each quarter and records liabilities for remediation costs on an undiscounted basis when they are probable and reasonably estimable, generally no later than the completion of feasibility studies or the Company’s commitment to a plan of action. Liabilities for estimated costs of environmental remediation, depending on the site, are based primarily upon internal or third-party environmental studies, and estimates as to the number, participation level and financial viability of any other potentially responsible parties, the extent of the contamination and the nature of required remedial actions. The Company adjusts recorded liabilities as further information develops or circumstances change. The Company expects that it will pay the amounts recorded over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, currently ranging up to 20 years. It is difficult to estimate the cost of environmental compliance and remediation given the uncertainties regarding the interpretation and enforcement of applicable environmental laws and regulations, the extent of environmental contamination and the existence of alternative cleanup methods. Developments may occur that could affect the Company’s current assessment, including, but not limited to: (i) changes in the information available regarding the environmental impact of the Company’s operations and products; (ii) changes in environmental regulations, changes in permissible levels of specific compounds in drinking water sources, or changes in enforcement theories and policies, including efforts to recover natural resource damages; (iii) new and evolving analytical and remediation techniques; (iv) success in allocating liability to other potentially responsible parties; and (v) the financial viability of other potentially responsible parties and third-party indemnitors. For sites included in both “environmental remediation liabilities” and “other environmental liabilities,” at which remediation activity is largely complete and remaining activity relates primarily to operation and maintenance of the remedy, including required post-remediation monitoring, the Company believes the exposure to loss in excess of the amount accrued would not be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition. However, for locations at which remediation activity is largely ongoing, the Company cannot estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the associated established accruals for the reasons described above. Other Regulatory Matters In May 2023, an incident at a Company facility in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin resulted in an employee fatality. The United States Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) began an investigation into the incident and, as reflected by a DOL press release dated November 7, 2023, issued two citations to the Company for alleged willful safety violations. In September 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA and the DOL related to the incident, which included an immaterial payment amount. The settlement agreement did not include a finding of willful safety violations in connection with the incident. In October 2024, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Wisconsin seeking records related to, among other things, the Prairie du Chien facility, records related to the incident, and other injuries that have occurred at Prairie du Chien and other 3M facilities, and OSHA safety inspections conducted at other 3M facilities. The Company is cooperating and providing information responsive to the subpoena. Product Liability Litigation Combat Arms Earplugs Litigation Aearo Technologies sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 Earplugs starting in about 1999. 3M acquired Aearo Technologies in 2008 and sold these earplugs from 2008 through 2015, when the product was discontinued. 3M and Aearo Technologies believe the Combat Arms Earplugs (CAE) were effective and safe when used properly, but nevertheless, as discussed below, prior to the CAE Settlement (as defined below), Aearo Technologies and certain of its related entities (collectively, the "Aearo Entities") and 3M faced litigation from a significant number of claimants. In August 2023, 3M and the Aearo Entities entered into a settlement arrangement (as amended, the “CAE Settlement”) which is structured to promote participation by claimants and is intended to resolve, to the fullest extent possible, all litigation and alleged claims involving the Combat Arms Earplugs sold or manufactured by the Aearo Entities and/or 3M, as well as potential future claims. Pursuant to the CAE Settlement, 3M will contribute up to a total amount of $6.0 billion between 2023 and 2029. The actual amount, payment terms and dates are subject to satisfaction of certain collective participation thresholds claimants must meet and provision to 3M of a full release of claims involving the Combat Arms Earplugs. The CAE Settlement provides that 3M does not admit any liability or wrongdoing. As a result of the CAE Settlement, 3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $4.2 billion in the third quarter of 2023. The charge reflected the $5.3 billion pre-tax present value (discounted at an estimated 5.6% interest rate at time consummation) of contributions under the CAE Settlement net of 3M’s then-existing accrual of $1.1 billion related to this matter. On March 26, 2024, the Company announced that, as of the final registration date for the CAE settlement agreement, more than 99% of claimants were either participating in the settlement or have been dismissed with prejudice. With a 98% participation threshold having been met, the Company began making payments pursuant to the payment schedule set forth in the amended settlement agreement. The current claimant participation level under the settlement agreement (including claims dismissed with prejudice) exceeds 99%; however, existing or new litigation may continue in the United States and internationally relating to the products that are the subject of the settlement. For example, the Company is aware of a writ of summons that was filed in Australia on behalf of purported users of the Company's earplug products. During the first six months of 2025, the Company increased its existing accrual for CAE by approximately $87 million primarily for interest accretion on the CAE Settlement and made related payments of approximately $1.4 billion. As of June 30, 2025, the Company had an accrued liability of $2.4 billion related to CAE. This amount is reflected within contingent liability claims and other ($0.4 billion within other current liabilities and $2.0 billion within other liabilities) on 3M’s consolidated balance sheet. The accruals represent the Company’s estimate of the probable loss in connection with the CAE Settlement. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the established accruals at this time. Insurance Recoveries The Company is actively engaged in insurance recovery activities to offset a portion of its liabilities, including those described above. For respirator mask/asbestos, CAE, and PFAS-related litigation and liabilities, recovery processes are underway through lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, arbitration proceedings, mediations, and negotiations with insurers. During the second quarter of 2025, the Company recorded $59 million in insurance recovery benefits related to respirator mask/asbestos, CAE, and PFAS-related matters. The Company's aggregate recovery benefits for these matters during the first six months of 2025 was $85 million. Insurance recoveries related to CAE litigation are provided to the Qualified Settlement Fund as part of the consideration for the settlement. Various factors could affect the timing and amount of insurance recoveries, including (i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, (iii) the outcome of negotiations with insurers; and (iv) the scope of the insurers’ purported defenses and exclusions to avoid coverage. The Company’s aggregate liabilities are unlikely to be fully covered by applicable insurance, and, to the extent covered, will exceed the applicable limits of such insurance.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration