What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Financial Statements

2026-04-21 compared with 2025-10-21 · 922 added, 1307 removed, 469 unchanged (83% of the section changed)

3 unchanged sentences

Three months ended

September 30, Nine months ended

September 30,

(Millions, except per share amounts) 2026 2025

7 unchanged sentences

Operating income 1,397 1,246

1,447 1,316 3,833 3,737

Other expense (income), net 519 ( 139 )

Income from continuing operations before income taxes

1,147 1,721 3,455 4,060

Income before income taxes 878 1,385

Provision for income taxes 221 265

308 348 818 771

Income from continuing operations of consolidated group

839 1,373 2,637 3,289

Income of consolidated group 657 1,120

Income from unconsolidated subsidiaries, net of taxes 2 2

Net income from continuing operations including noncontrolling interest

841 1,376 2,688 3,296

Net income including noncontrolling interest 659 1,122

net income attributable to noncontrolling interest 6 6

Net income from continuing operations attributable to 3M

834 1,372 2,673 3,281

Net income from discontinued operations, net of taxes

Net income attributable to 3M $ 653 $ 1,116

$ 834 $ 1,372 $ 2,673 $ 3,445

Earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders:

Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding — basic 529.1 543.8

Earnings per share from continuing operations — basic

$ 1.56 $ 2.49 $ 4.97 $ 5.93

Earnings per share from discontinued operations — basic

Earnings per share — basic $ 1.23 $ 2.05

$ 1.56 $ 2.49 $ 4.97 $ 6.23

Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding — diluted 532.8 547.7

Earnings per share from continuing operations — diluted

$ 1.55 $ 2.48 $ 4.93 $ 5.92

Earnings per share from discontinued operations — diluted

Earnings per share — diluted $ 1.23 $ 2.04

$ 1.55 $ 2.48 $ 4.93 $ 6.21

The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of this statement.

2 unchanged sentences

Three months ended

September 30, Nine months ended

September 30,

(Millions) 2026 2025

Net income attributable to 3M

$ 834 $ 1,372 $ 2,673 $ 3,445

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest

Net income including noncontrolling interest

6 unchanged sentences

Comprehensive income including noncontrolling interest

930 1,718 3,282 4,429

Comprehensive (income) attributable to noncontrolling interest ( 3 ) ( 6 )

( 3 ) ( 3 ) ( 11 ) ( 14 )

Comprehensive income attributable to 3M

3 unchanged sentences

Consolidated Balance Sheet

(Dollars in millions, except per share amount) September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024

(Dollars in millions, except per share amount) March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Current assets

Cash and cash equivalents $ 3,729 $ 5,235

Marketable securities — current 517 2,128

Marketable securities 420 698

Accounts receivable — net of allowances of $ 45 and $ 61

Finished goods 1,926 1,849

Work in process 1,146 1,051

Raw materials and supplies 821 798

Total inventories 3,893 3,698

Inventories 3,690 3,661

Prepaids 407 391

2 unchanged sentences

Total current assets 14,393 16,387

Property, plant and equipment 23,931 23,406

accumulated depreciation ( 16,684 ) ( 16,018 )

Property, plant and equipment — net 6,960 7,101

Operating lease right of use assets 537 565

Goodwill 6,384 6,419

6 unchanged sentences

Accrued payroll 420 718

Accrued income taxes 324 331

Operating lease liabilities — current 174 163

Liabilities held for sale 56 55

3 unchanged sentences

Pension and postretirement benefits 1,586 1,631

Operating lease liabilities 379 405

Other liabilities 10,601 10,828

2 unchanged sentences

3M Company shareholders’ equity:

Common stock par value, $ .01 par value;

Common stock par value, $ .01 per share;

944,033,056 shares issued

Shares outstanding - September 30, 2025:

Shares outstanding - March 31, 2026:

521,567,261 ;

December 31, 2025:

2 unchanged sentences

Treasury stock, at cost ( 37,309 ) ( 35,936 )

Shares at March 31, 2026:

422,465,795 ;

Shares at September 30, 2025:

December 31, 2025:

7 unchanged sentences

Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

Nine months ended September 30,

Three months ended March 31,

(Millions) 2026 2025

1 unchanged sentence

Net income including noncontrolling interest

Adjustments to reconcile net income including noncontrolling interest to net cash provided by operating activities

$ 659 $ 1,122

Adjustments to reconcile net income including noncontrolling interest to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities

Depreciation and amortization 326 290

8 unchanged sentences

Accounts payable 120 134

Accrued income taxes (current and long-term) ( 125 ) ( 152 )

Other — net ( 393 ) ( 1,522 )

5 unchanged sentences

Proceeds from maturities and sale of marketable securities and investments 436 1,597

Proceeds from sale of businesses, net of cash sold 5 —

Other — net 2 ( 3 )

1 unchanged sentence

Cash flows from financing activities

Change in short-term debt — net — ( 205 )

Repayment of debt (maturities greater than 90 days) — ( 750 )

3 unchanged sentences

Dividends paid to shareholders ( 412 ) ( 396 )

Cash transferred to Solventum related to separation, net — ( 616 )

Other — net ( 15 ) ( 6 )

4 unchanged sentences

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

( 1,506 ) 726

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 5,235 5,600

1 unchanged sentence

The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of this statement.

1 The Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows include the results of continuing and discontinued operations and, therefore, also include cash and cash equivalents associated with Solventum through its April 2024 separation from 3M that were presented in current assets of discontinued operations in the 3M Consolidated Balance Sheet.

3M Company and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Significant Accounting Policies

6 unchanged sentences

Certain amounts in prior periods’ consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation.

As discussed in Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K, 3M invests in marketable and equity securities.

Equity securities mainly consist of 3M’s ownership interest in Solventum, which was classified as a current equity investment (part of other current assets) in the third quarter of 2025.

Classification as current or non-current is based on availability for use in current operations.

In addition, effective in the first quarter of 2026, the Company made changes to the measure of segment operating performance and segment composition used by its chief operating decision maker ("CODM").These changes impacted the disclosed measure of segment profit and other segment-related amounts as further described in Note 16.

3M's disclosed disaggregated revenue was also updated as a result of these changes (see Note 2).

Information provided herein reflects the impact of these changes for all periods presented.

New Accounting Pronouncements:

Refer to Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of applicable standards issued and not yet adopted by 3M.

Relevant New Standards Issued Subsequent to Most Recent Annual Report

In July 2025, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No.

2025-05, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326):

Measurement of Credit Losses for Accounts Receivable and Contract Assets The ASU provides an optional practical expedient for estimating future credit losses based on current conditions as of the balance sheet date and assuming those conditions do not change over the remaining life of the accounts receivable.

For 3M, this standard is effective January 1, 2026.

3M does not expect this ASU to have a material impact on consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In September 2025, the FASB issued ASU No.

2025-06, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other - Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-40):

Targeted Improvements to the Accounting for Internal-Use Software.

The ASU removes references to prescriptive software development stages and includes an updated framework for capitalizing internal software costs.

For 3M, this standard is effective January 1, 2028.

3M is currently evaluating this ASU's impact on consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

Discontinued Operations

On April 1, 2024, 3M completed the separation of its Health Care business (the Separation) through a pro rata distribution of 80.1 % of the outstanding shares of Solventum Corporation (Solventum) to 3M stockholders.

As a result, Solventum became an independent public company, 3M no longer consolidates Solventum into 3M’s financial results and the historical net income of Solventum and applicable assets and liabilities included in the Separation are reported in 3M's consolidated financial statements as discontinued operations.

Refer to Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information regarding the Separation and the various agreements (supply, transition and other agreements) that provide for the relationship between 3M and Solventum.

3M continuing involvement with Solventum in the form of net sales under supply agreements and income from transition agreements is reflected in amounts disclosed in "Corporate and Other" in Note 19, recorded as net sales and associated costs and recorded as a direct offset to associated costs within selling, general and administrative expenses, respectively.

Solventum transition agreement income for the three and nine and months ended September 30, 2025 was approximately $ 30 million and $ 120 million, respectively (approximately $ 0.2 billion and $ 0.6 billion gross fees, net of assigned costs, respectively).

Solventum transition agreement income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2024 was approximately $ 5 million and $ 40 million, respectively, (approximately $ 0.2 billion and $ 0.4 billion gross fees, net of assigned costs, respectively).

Transition services or purchases from Solventum are not material to 3M.

Amounts due from Solventum and amounts due to Solventum under the agreements referenced above were approximately $ 0.4 billion and $ 0.2 billion, respectively, as of September 30, 2025 and as of December 31, 2024.

Information regarding net income from discontinued operations, net of taxes includes the following:

Net income from discontinued operations, net of taxes (millions)

Nine months ended

September 30, 2024

Cost of sales 844

Other operating expenses

Other expense (income), net

Income from discontinued operations before income taxes

Provision for income taxes 98

Net income from discontinued operations, net of taxes

Cash flows related to discontinued operations have not been segregated, and are included in the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for all periods presented.

Selected financial information related to cash flows from discontinued operations is below.

Selected cash flow information from discontinued operations (millions)

Nine months ended

September 30, 2024

Depreciation and amortization $ 139

Purchases of PP&E

Disaggregated Revenue Information:

The Company views the following disaggregated disclosures as useful to understanding the composition of revenue recognized during the respective reporting periods:

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

Three months ended March 31,

Net sales (millions)

2025 2024 2025 2024

Abrasives $ 349 $ 317

3 unchanged sentences

Industrial Specialties Division

297 292 879 873

Personal Safety 912 850

1 unchanged sentence

Total Safety and Industrial Business segment

2,917 2,767 8,519 8,258

Advanced Materials 147 143

1 unchanged sentence

Commercial Branding and Transportation

691 659 1,996 1,941

Electronics 577 582

Total Transportation and Electronics Business segment

2,191 2,139 6,311 6,386

Consumer Safety and Well-Being 278 274

3 unchanged sentences

Total Consumer Business segment

1,312 1,299 3,706 3,702

Corporate and Other

97 89 279 219

Total Company

$ 6,030 $ 5,954

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

Three months ended March 31,

Net sales by geographic area (millions)

2025 2024 2025 2024

Americas $ 3,153 $ 3,207

2 unchanged sentences

Worldwide $ 6,030 $ 5,954

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

Net sales by particular country (billions)

2025 2024 2025 2024

Three months ended March 31,

Net sales by particular country (millions)

United States

1 unchanged sentence

China/Hong Kong

0.8 0.7 2.3 2.1

Refer to Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information on relevant pre-2025 divestitures.

In June 2025, 3M completed the sale of its fused silica business, formerly part of the Transportation and Electronics business, for immaterial proceeds slightly below the business's book value.

In September 2025, 3M agreed to sell its precision grinding and finishing business, within the Safety and Industrial business.

The transaction is expected to close in the first half of 2026, subject to customary closing conditions.

In the third quarter of 2025, this business was classified as held for sale and 3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $ 161 million for the excess of its carrying value over its selling price less cost to sell.

Selling price does not involve proceeds, but a balance of cash, subject to closing and other adjustments, is to be left in the transferring business.

This charge was reported within Corporate and Other and reflected in loss on business divestitures on the consolidated statement of income.

The business has annual sales of approximately $ 130 million and its operating income, which does not include the charge reflected in Corporate and Other, was not material.

Acquisitions and Divestitures

Refer to Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information on relevant pre-2026 acquisitions and divestitures.

Announced Acquisitions:

In March 2026, 3M, in partnership with Bain Capital ("Bain"), entered into an agreement to acquire Madison Fire & Rescue ("Madison") for $ 1.95 billion, subject to closing and other adjustments.

Madison offers a portfolio of rescue technology and fire-suppression products.

Under related agreements, 3M and Bain will establish a venture to which 3M will contribute its self-contained breathing apparatus business ("SCBA") and Bain will contribute cash.

The venture will utilize the contribution and purchase Madison, while taking on leverage.

3M expects to consolidate the venture, of which 3M will own 50.1 % and Bain will own 49.9 %.

On a consolidated basis, 3M anticipates net proceeds of approximately $ 0.7 billion upon closing of the transactions, reflecting financing and Bain's contribution, net of amounts used to acquire Madison.

The transactions are expected to close in the second half of 2026, subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approval.

Madison will be combined with SCBA within 3M's Safety and Industrial segment.

Divestitures:

In April 2026, 3M completed the sale of its precision grinding and finishing business, formerly within the Safety and Industrial business.

This business was classified as held for sale in the third quarter of 2025.

In 2025, 3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $ 159 million for the excess of its carrying value over its selling price less cost to sell and recorded an immaterial amount in 2026 to reflect subsequent changes.

Selling price did not involve proceeds, but a balance of cash, subject to closing and other adjustments, was left in the transferring business.

This charge and related changes were reported within Corporate and reflected in loss on business divestitures on the consolidated statement of income.

The business has annual sales of approximately $ 130 million and its operating income, excluding the charge reflected in Corporate, was not material.

The below summarizes the carrying amounts of the major classes of assets and liabilities classified as held for sale in the consolidated balance sheet:

(millions) September 30, 2025

(Millions) March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Assets held for sale

12 unchanged sentences

The change in the carrying amount of goodwill by business segment was as follows:

(Millions) Safety and Industrial Transportation and Electronics Consumer Corporate and Other Total company

(Millions) Safety and Industrial Transportation and Electronics Consumer Corporate

Total Company

Balance as of December 31, 2025

Translation and other 94 30 11 — 135

Balance as of September 30, 2025 $ 4,563 $ 1,526 $ 269 $ 58 $ 6,416

The amounts in the “Translation and other” row in the above table primarily relate to changes in foreign currency exchange rates.

As of September 30, 2025, the Company's accumulated goodwill impairment loss is $ 0.3 billion.

$ 4,571 $ 1,525 $ 265 $ 58 $ 6,419

Translation and other (a)

( 24 ) ( 8 ) ( 3 ) — ( 35 )

Balance as of March 31, 2026

$ 4,547 $ 1,517 $ 262 $ 58 $ 6,384

(a) The amounts in the “Translation and other” primarily relate to changes in foreign currency exchange rates.

As of March 31, 2026, the Company's accumulated goodwill impairment loss is $ 0.3 billion.

Acquired Intangible Assets:

The carrying amount and accumulated amortization of acquired finite-lived intangible assets, in addition to the balance of non-amortizable intangible assets follow:

(Millions) September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024

The carrying amount and accumulated amortization of the Company's acquired finite-lived intangible assets and the balances of non-amortizable intangible assets are presented below:

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

(Millions) Gross carrying amount Accumulated amortization Net carrying amount Gross carrying amount Accumulated amortization Net carrying amount

Finite-lived intangible assets

Customer related

Patents 203 207

Other technology-based

$ 1,230 $ ( 932 ) $ 1,239 $ ( 925 )

Patents and technology 571 ( 546 ) 573 ( 544 )

Definite-lived tradenames

Total gross carrying amount

Accumulated amortization — customer related ( 908 ) ( 935 )

Accumulated amortization — patents ( 203 ) ( 207 )

Accumulated amortization — other technology-based ( 341 ) ( 328 )

Accumulated amortization — definite-lived tradenames ( 312 ) ( 300 )

Accumulated amortization — other ( 30 ) ( 30 )

Total accumulated amortization ( 1,794 ) ( 1,800 )

Total finite-lived intangible assets — net 548 631

Indefinite lived intangible assets (primarily tradenames)

Total intangible assets — net $ 1,127 $ 1,210

Certain tradenames acquired by 3M are not amortized because they have been in existence for over 60 years, have a history of leading-market share positions, have been and are intended to be continuously renewed, and the associated products of which are expected to generate cash flows for 3M for an indefinite period of time.

482 ( 324 ) 482 ( 318 )

47 ( 29 ) 47 ( 30 )

Total $ 2,330 $ ( 1,831 ) $ 499 $ 2,341 $ ( 1,817 ) $ 524

Indefinite lived intangible assets (b)

Total intangible assets $ 1,078 $ 1,103

(b) Indefinite lived intangible assets primarily consists of certain tradenames acquired by 3M that are not amortized because they have existed for over 60 years, maintain leading-market share positions, are continuously renewed, and are associated with products expected to generate cash flows for 3M for an indefinite period.

Amortization expense follows:

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

Three months ended March 31,

(Millions) 2026 2025

Amortization expense $ 25 $ 26

Expected amortization expense for acquired amortizable intangible assets recorded as of September 30, 2025 follows:

Expected amortization expense for acquired amortizable intangible assets recorded as of March 31, 2026 follows:

(Millions) Remainder of 2026

1 unchanged sentence

Amortization expense $ 73 $ 85 $ 59 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 111

3M expenses the costs incurred to renew or extend the term of intangible assets.

Restructuring Actions

Transformation Costs:

In the third quarter of 2025, management approved and committed to undertake initial restructuring actions associated with 3M's transformation program, intended as a structural redesign of longer-term manufacturing, distribution, and business process services and locations.

Associated pre-tax restructuring charges in the third quarter of 2025, primarily asset-related charges, were $ 12 million, reflected in Corporate and Other and primarily included in cost of sales.

In the third quarter of 2025, 3M began a transformation program intended as a structural redesign of longer-term manufacturing, distribution, and business process services and locations.

During 2025, management approved and committed to initial restructuring actions resulting in a pre-tax charge of $ 51 million ($ 35 million in employee-related charges and $ 16 million in asset-related and other charges).

In the first quarter of 2026, management approved and committed to additional actions resulting in a pre-tax charge of $ 44 million, primarily employee related.

Charges related to this initiative are reflected in Corporate (see Note 16) and primarily impacted selling, general and administrative expenses and cost of sales.

The accrued restructuring liability was $ 25 million as of December 31, 2025.

During 2026, 3M made related payments resulting in an accrued restructuring balance of $ 45 million as of March 31, 2026.

Additional actions are expected and are subject to management's future approval and commitment.

2023 to 2025 Structural Reorganization Actions:

In 2023, 3M announced it would undertake structural reorganization actions to reduce the size of the corporate center of the Company, simplify the supply chain, streamline 3M’s geographic footprint, reduce layers of management, further align business go-to-market models to customers, and reduce manufacturing roles to align with production volumes.

This initiative, beginning in the first quarter of 2023 and ending largely in the second quarter of 2025, impacted approximately seven thousand positions worldwide (as updated to exclude discontinued operations).

During 2024, management approved and committed to undertake additional actions under this initiative impacting approximately one thousand positions and other actions resulting in a pre-tax charge of $ 187 million, the relevant portion of which relating to the third quarter and first nine months are indicated in the table below.

In the first nine months of 2025, management approved and committed to undertake additional actions resulting in a pre-tax charge as indicated in the table below.

Remaining activities related to approved and committed actions are expected to be largely completed in 2025.

The related restructuring charges for periods presented were recorded in the income statement as follows:

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

(Millions) 2024 2025 2024

Cost of sales $ 19 $ 1 $ 23

Selling, general and administrative expenses 18 20 141

Research, development and related expenses 3 — 14

Total operating income impact $ 40 $ 21 $ 178

The business segment operating income impact of these restructuring charges is summarized as follows:

Three months ended September 30,

(Millions) Employee related Asset-related and other Total

Safety and Industrial $ 15 $ 3 $ 18

Transportation and Electronics 8 1 9

Consumer 4 9 13

Total operating expense $ 27 $ 13 $ 40

Nine months ended September 30,

(Millions) Employee Related Employee Related Asset-Related and Other Total

Safety and Industrial $ 10 $ 54 $ 28 $ 82

Transportation and Electronics 7 24 19 43

Consumer 4 13 20 33

Corporate and Other — 6 14 20

Total operating expense $ 21 $ 97 $ 81 $ 178

Restructuring actions, including cash and non-cash impacts, follow:

(Millions) Employee-related

Accrued restructuring action balance as of December 31, 2024 $ 80

Incremental expense incurred in the first quarter of 2025 13

Incremental expense incurred in the second quarter of 2025 8

Adjustments ( 12 )

Cash payments ( 65 )

Accrued restructuring action balance as of September 30, 2025

2023 to 2025 PFAS Exit Restructuring Actions:

3M announced in 2022 that it will exit all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025 and began related workforce actions in 2023.

In the first nine months of 2024, management approved and committed to undertake actions resulting in an immaterial pre-tax charge.

During the first nine months of 2025, such actions resulted in a pre-tax charge as indicated in the table below.

These charges were reflected within the Transportation and Electronics business segment and primarily impacted cost of sales and selling, general and administrative expenses.

This initiative, beginning in 2023 through committed 2025 actions, impacted approximately 1,200 positions worldwide.

(Millions) Employee-related

Accrued restructuring action balance as of December 31, 2024 $ 86

Incremental expense incurred in the first quarter of 2025 5

Incremental expense incurred in the second quarter of 2025 4

Adjustments ( 8 )

Cash payments ( 35 )

Accrued restructuring action balance as of September 30, 2025

Supplemental Income Statement Information

Other expense (income), net consists of the following:

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

Three months ended March 31,

(Millions) 2026 2025

Interest expense 2

$ 232 $ 276 $ 724 $ 939

Interest expense (a)

Interest income ( 49 ) ( 79 )

Pension and postretirement net periodic benefit cost (benefit) 3

Solventum ownership - change in value 4

94 ( 581 ) ( 242 ) ( 1,694 )

Pension and postretirement net periodic benefit cost (benefit) (b)

Solventum ownership - change in value (c)

Total $ 519 $ ( 139 )

2 Interest expense related to outstanding debt is as follows below.

(a) Interest expense includes $ 106 million and $ 110 million in the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, respectively, related to outstanding debt.

Interest expense in the table above also includes imputed interest associated with the obligations resulting from the PWS Settlement, New Jersey Settlement, and CAE Settlement (all discussed in Note 15).

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

(Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024

Interest expense related to outstanding debt

$ 114 $ 114 $ 340 $ 371

3 Pension and postretirement net periodic benefit income described in the table above includes all components of defined benefit plan net periodic benefit cost (benefit) except service cost, which is reported in various operating expense lines.

(b) Pension and postretirement net periodic benefit income described in the table above includes all components of defined benefit plan net periodic benefit cost (benefit) except service cost, which is reported in various operating expense lines.

Refer to Note 12 for additional details on the components of pension and postretirement net periodic benefit cost (benefit).

4 Solventum ownership - change in value relates to the change in value of 3M's retained ownership interest in common stock of Solventum Corporation, an independent public company.

Solventum separated from 3M in April 2024 (discussed in Note 2).

As of September 30, 2025, the balance of unrealized gain on this investment was $ 1.3 billion.

(c) Solventum ownership - change in value relates to the change in value of 3M's retained ownership interest in common stock of Solventum Corporation, an independent public company ("Solventum"), in connection with 3M's spin-off its former health care business completed in April 2024 ("Solventum Spin-off").

As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025 the balance of unrealized gain on this investment was $ 1.1 billion and $ 1.5 billion, respectively.

Supplemental Balance Sheet Information

(Millions) March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Finished goods $ 1,738 $ 1,744

Work in process 1,130 1,126

Raw materials and supplies 822 791

Total inventories $ 3,690 $ 3,661

Property, Plant & Equipment

(Millions) March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Property, plant and equipment $ 23,911 $ 23,922

accumulated depreciation ( 16,951 ) ( 16,821 )

Property, plant and equipment — net $ 6,960 $ 7,101

Operating Leases

(Millions) Location on face of balance sheet

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Right of use assets

Current liability Other current liabilities

Noncurrent liability Other liabilities

Supplier Finance Program Obligations

Under supplier finance programs, 3M agrees to pay participating banks the stated amount of confirmed invoices from its designated suppliers on the original maturity dates of the invoices, generally within 90 days of the invoice date.

3M or the banks may terminate the agreements with advance notice.

Separately, the banks may have arrangements with the suppliers that provide them the option to request early payment from the banks for invoices confirmed by 3M.

3M's outstanding balances of confirmed invoices in the programs as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025 were each approximately $ 0.3 billion.

These amounts are included within accounts payable on 3M's consolidated balance sheet.

Supplemental Equity and Comprehensive Income Information

Cash dividends declared and paid totaled $ 0.73 per share for each of the first, second, and third quarters of 2025 and $ 1.51 for the first quarter of 2024 and $ 0.70 per share for the second and third quarters of 2024, respectively, or $ 2.19 and $ 2.91 per share for the first nine months of 2025 and 2024, respectively.

The table below presents the consolidated changes in equity for three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024:

Common stock ($ .01 par value per share) of 3 billion shares is authorized.

Preferred stock, without par value, of 10 million shares is authorized but unissued.

Cash dividends declared and paid totaled $ 0.78 and $ 0.73 per share for the first quarter of 2026 and 2025, respectively.

The table below presents the consolidated changes in equity for three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025:

3M Company Shareholders Non-controlling interest

(Millions) Total Common stock and additional paid-in capital Retained earnings Treasury stock Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

Balance at June 30, 2025

$ 4,351 $ 7,354 $ 37,693 $ ( 35,542 ) $ ( 5,215 ) $ 61

Net income 841 834 7

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 89 93 ( 4 )

Dividends declared ( 389 ) ( 389 )

Stock-based compensation 52 52

Reacquired stock ( 473 ) ( 473 )

Dividend to noncontrolling interest ( 17 ) ( 17 )

Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans 221 ( 35 ) 256

Balance at September 30, 2025

$ 4,675 $ 7,406 $ 38,103 $ ( 35,759 ) $ ( 5,122 ) $ 47

Balance at June 30, 2024

Balance at December 31, 2025

$ 4,747 $ 7,449 $ 38,258 $ ( 35,936 ) $ ( 5,069 ) $ 45

1 unchanged sentence

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax ( 33 ) ( 30 ) ( 3 )

Solventum spin-off 4 4 —

Dividends declared ( 412 ) ( 412 )

1 unchanged sentence

Reacquired stock ( 2,012 ) ( 2,012 )

Dividend to non controlling interest ( 23 ) ( 23 )

Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans 302 ( 337 ) 639

Balance at September 30, 2024

Balance at March 31, 2026

$ 3,311 $ 7,509 $ 38,162 $ ( 37,309 ) $ ( 5,099 ) $ 48

3 unchanged sentences

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 200 200 —

Solventum spin-off ( 3 ) ( 14 ) 11

Dividends declared ( 396 ) ( 396 )

2 unchanged sentences

Reacquired stock ( 1,275 ) ( 1,275 )

Dividend to noncontrolling interest ( 17 ) ( 17 )

Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans 905 ( 85 ) 990

Balance at September 30, 2025

$ 4,675 $ 7,406 $ 38,103 $ ( 35,759 ) $ ( 5,122 ) $ 47

Balance at December 31, 2023

Balance at March 31, 2025

$ 4,523 $ 7,310 $ 37,432 $ ( 34,747 ) $ ( 5,531 ) $ 59

Net income 3,460 3,445 15

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 969 970 ( 1 )

Solventum spin-off ( 2,165 ) ( 2,749 ) 584

Dividends declared ( 1,604 ) ( 1,604 )

Stock-based compensation 226 226

Reacquired stock ( 1,105 ) ( 1,105 )

Dividend to noncontrolling interest ( 23 ) ( 23 )

Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans 68 ( 112 ) 180

Balance at September 30, 2024 $ 4,694 $ 7,191 $ 36,459 $ ( 33,784 ) $ ( 5,224 ) $ 52

The table below presents the changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) attributable to 3M (AOCI), including the reclassifications out of AOCI by component for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024:

The table below presents the changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) attributable to 3M ("AOCI"), including the reclassifications out of AOCI by component:

(Millions) Cumulative translation adjustment

Defined benefit pension and postretirement plans adjustment

Cash flow hedging instruments, unrealized gain (loss)

Cash flow hedging instruments, unrealized gain (loss) (a)

Total accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

Balance at June 30, 2025, net of tax:

$ ( 2,443 ) $ ( 2,645 ) $ ( 127 ) $ ( 5,215 )

Other comprehensive income (loss), before tax:

Amounts before reclassifications ( 64 ) 111 23 70

Amounts reclassified out — 71 4 75

Total other comprehensive income (loss), before tax ( 64 ) 182 27 145

( 3 ) ( 43 ) ( 6 ) ( 52 )

Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax ( 67 ) 139 21 93

Balance at September 30, 2025, net of tax:

$ ( 2,510 ) $ ( 2,506 ) $ ( 106 ) $ ( 5,122 )

Balance at June 30, 2024, net of tax:

$ ( 2,795 ) $ ( 2,737 ) $ ( 35 ) $ ( 5,567 )

Other comprehensive income (loss), before tax:

Amounts before reclassifications 331 — ( 70 ) 261

Amounts reclassified out — 63 ( 21 ) 42

Total other comprehensive income (loss), before tax 331 63 ( 91 ) 303

38 ( 15 ) 17 40

Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 369 48 ( 74 ) 343

Balance at September 30, 2024, net of tax:

$ ( 2,426 ) $ ( 2,689 ) $ ( 109 ) $ ( 5,224 )

Balance at December 31, 2025, net of tax:

4 unchanged sentences

Total other comprehensive income (loss), before tax ( 67 ) 63 21 17

Tax effect (b)

( 25 ) ( 16 ) ( 6 ) ( 47 )

Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax ( 92 ) 47 15 ( 30 )

Solventum spin-off — 11 — 11

Balance at September 30, 2025, net of tax:

Balance at March 31, 2026, net of tax:

$ ( 2,612 ) $ ( 2,404 ) $ ( 83 ) $ ( 5,099 )

5 unchanged sentences

Total other comprehensive income (loss), before tax 149 76 ( 37 ) 188

Tax effect (b)

22 ( 18 ) 8 12

Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 171 58 ( 29 ) 200

Solventum spin-off 64 520 — 584

Balance at September 30, 2024, net of tax:

Balance at March 31, 2025, net of tax:

$ ( 2,782 ) $ ( 2,705 ) $ ( 44 ) $ ( 5,531 )

5 Includes tax expense (benefit) reclassified out of AOCI related to the following:

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

(a) Based on exchange rates as of March 31, 2026, 3M expects to reclassify an immaterial amount of after-tax net unrealized loss over the next 12 months (with the impact offset by earnings/losses from underlying hedged items) of the total after-tax net unrealized balance.

(b) Includes tax expense (benefit) reclassified out of AOCI related to the following:

Three months ended March 31,

(Millions) 2026 2025

Cumulative translation adjustment $ — $ — $ — $ —

Defined benefit pension and postretirement plans adjustment $ ( 16 ) $ ( 18 )

Cash flow hedging instruments, realized gain/loss ( 1 ) 5 8 18

Cash flow hedging instruments ( 2 ) 5

Income taxes are not provided for foreign translation relating to permanent investments in international subsidiaries, but tax effects within cumulative translation do include impacts from items such as net investment hedge transactions.

1 unchanged sentence

Additional details on the amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into consolidated income include:

• Cumulative translation adjustment:

amounts were reclassified into selling, general and administrative expense.

In 2024, this was associated with country exits as part of streamlining 3M’s geographic footprint (see Note 6).

• Defined benefit pension and postretirement plan adjustments:

4 unchanged sentences

The effective tax rates were as follows:

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

Three months ended March 31,

(Percent of pre-tax income) 2026 2025

Effective tax rate 25.2 % 19.1 %

The primary factors that increased the Company's effective tax rate for the three months ended September 30, 2025, when compared to 2024, were the tax impacts of:

3M's retained ownership interest in Solventum, Pillar Two Model Rules, and the loss on business divestiture, partially offset by net costs of significant litigation.

The primary factors that increased the Company's effective tax rate for the nine months ended September 30, 2025, when compared to 2024, were the tax impact of:

3M's retained ownership interest in Solventum and Pillar Two Model Rules, partially offset by net costs of significant litigation.

The primary factors that increased the Company's effective tax rate for the three months ended March 31, 2026, compared to the same period in 2025, were the tax impacts of 3M's retained ownership interest in Solventum, partially offset by increased tax benefits from stock-based compensation.

Net deferred tax assets (net of valuation allowance and deferred tax liabilities) are included as components of other assets and other liabilities within the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

This net balance was the following:

(Billions) September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024

This net balance was comprised of the following:

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Deferred tax asset (net of valuation allowance)

$ 3,707 $ 3,826

Deferred tax liability

Net deferred tax assets $ 3,298 $ 3,408

2 unchanged sentences

Three months ended

September 30, Nine months ended

September 30,

(Amounts in millions, except per share amounts) 2026 2025

Net income from continuing operations attributable to 3M $ 834 $ 1,372 $ 2,673 $ 3,281

Net income from discontinued operations, net of taxes

Net income attributable to 3M

Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding – basic

$ 653 $ 1,116

Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding – basic

Dilution associated with stock-based compensation plans 3.7 3.9

Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding – diluted

538.1 552.7 542.1 554.5

Earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders:

Earnings per share from continuing operations — basic $ 1.56 $ 2.49 $ 4.97 $ 5.93

Earnings per share from discontinued operations — basic

Earnings per share — basic

Earnings per share from continuing operations — diluted $ 1.55 $ 2.48 $ 4.93 $ 5.92

Earnings per share from discontinued operations — diluted

$ 1.23 $ 2.05

Earnings per share — diluted

$ 1.23 $ 2.04

The difference in the weighted average 3M shares outstanding for calculating basic and diluted earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders is the result of the dilution associated with the Company’s stock-based compensation plans.

1 unchanged sentence

Three months ended

September 30, Nine months ended

September 30,

2025 2024 2025 2024

Average number of antidilutive shares

11.5 31.1 14.7 32.3

Marketable Securities

The Company invests in certificates of deposit/time deposits, commercial paper, and other securities.

The following is a summary of amounts recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet for marketable securities (current and non-current).

(Millions) September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024

Asset backed securities

Foreign corporate debt

government securities

Corporate debt securities 210 819

Commercial paper 83 658

Certificates of deposit/time deposits 63 185

treasury securities 12 269

municipal securities 4 4

Current marketable securities 517 2,128

municipal securities 16 16

Non-current marketable securities 16 16

Total marketable securities $ 533 $ 2,144

At September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, gross unrealized, gross realized, and net realized gains and/or losses (pre-tax) were not material.

The balances at September 30, 2025 for marketable securities by contractual maturity are shown below.

Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities because the issuers of the securities may have the right to prepay obligations without prepayment penalties.

Due in one year or less $ 402

Due after one year through five years 131

Total marketable securities $ 533

Weighted average number of antidilutive shares

Long-Term Debt and Short-Term Borrowings

2025 issuances, maturities, and extinguishments of short- and long-term debt are described in Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows include the results of continuing and discontinued operations and, therefore, information regarding similar debt-related activity for 2024 includes activity associated with Solventum through its April 2024 Separation.

The Company had no commercial paper outstanding at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024.

In the third quarter and first nine months of 2025, 3M repaid $ 0.6 billion and $ 1.8 billion respectively, in aggregate principal amount of primarily fixed-rate unsecured notes that matured.

In the first quarter of 2025, 3M issued $ 1.1 billion aggregate principal amount of fixed rate unsecured notes.

These were comprised of $ 550 million of 5-year notes due 2030 with a coupon rate of 4.80 % and $ 550 million of 10-year notes due 2035 with a coupon rate of 5.15 %.

In 2021, 3M entered into interest rate swaps with an aggregate notional amount of $ 800 million that converted $ 500 million and $ 300 million of 3M’s $ 1 billion and $ 650 million principal amount of fixed rate notes due in 2049 and 2050, respectively, into floating rate debt, based on a SOFR index (as subsequently amended) for the portion of their terms through mid-2028.

During the third quarter of 2025, 3M terminated half of these fixed-to-floating interest rate swaps, returning $ 400 million of notes due in 2049 to fixed-rate debt.

At the time of termination, a cumulative basis adjustment of $ 25 million related to the terminated swaps existed on the carrying value of these notes and will be amortized as interest expense over their remaining term.

Future Maturities of Long-term Debt:

Maturities of long-term debt in the table below reflect the impact of put provisions associated with certain debt instruments and are net of items such as unamortized debt issue costs such that total maturities equal the carrying value of long-term debt as of September 30, 2025.

The maturities of long-term debt for the periods subsequent to September 30, 2025 are as follows (in millions):

Remainder of 2025

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 After 2030

$ 101 $ 1,620 $ 862 $ 797 $ 1,793 $ 1,726 $ 5,704 $ 12,603

Changes in future maturities of long-term debt since December 31, 2025 were not material.

The Company had no commercial paper outstanding at March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025.

In March 2026, 3M entered into a $ 1.45 billion unsecured term loan facility with a variable rate which was undrawn as of March 31, 2026.

The facility was established to provide financing flexibility in connection with the Madison acquisition and venture formation described in Note 3 and has a 364-day term from that transaction's closing date.

Pension and Postretirement Benefit Plans

3 unchanged sentences

The other components of net periodic benefit cost are reflected in other expense (income), net.

Effective April 1, 2024, approximately $ 2.7 billion of benefit obligations and $ 2.4 billion of plan assets for certain pension and postretirement benefit plans, were transferred to Solventum, which is treated as a discontinued operation.

Components of net periodic benefit cost and other supplemental information for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024 follow:

Components of net periodic benefit cost and other supplemental information for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025 follow:

Three months ended March 31,

Qualified and non-qualified pension benefits Postretirement benefits

United States International

Three months ended September 30,

Net periodic benefit cost (benefit) (millions) 2026 2025 2026 2025 2026 2025

4 unchanged sentences

Expected return on plan assets ( 144 ) ( 142 ) ( 73 ) ( 65 ) ( 14 ) ( 14 )

Amortization of transition asset — — — — — —

Amortization of prior service benefit — — — 1 ( 7 ) ( 1 )

Amortization of net actuarial loss 64 69 2 2 4 5

Settlements, curtailments, special termination benefits and other — — — — — —

Total non-operating expense (benefit) 20 35 ( 21 ) ( 16 ) ( 1 ) 9

Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) $ 44 $ 61 $ ( 10 ) $ ( 5 ) $ 3 $ 13

Nine months ended September 30,

2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024

Operating expense

Service cost $ 77 $ 94 $ 36 $ 50 $ 14 $ 17

Non-operating expense

Interest cost 325 411 138 153 56 63

Expected return on plan assets ( 426 ) ( 573 ) ( 198 ) ( 248 ) ( 42 ) ( 49 )

Amortization of transition asset — — — 2 — —

Amortization of prior service benefit — ( 11 ) 1 1 ( 8 ) ( 18 )

Amortization of net actuarial loss 207 242 6 9 12 15

Settlements, curtailments, special termination benefits and other — 795 — — — —

Total non-operating expense (benefit) 106 864 ( 53 ) ( 83 ) 18 11

Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) 183 958 ( 17 ) ( 33 ) 32 28

Service cost - continuing operations $ 77 $ 87 $ 36 $ 45 $ 14 $ 16

Service cost - discontinued operations — 7 — 5 — 1

Total service cost 77 94 36 50 14 17

Non-operating expense (benefit) - continuing operations 106 864 ( 53 ) ( 83 ) 18 11

Non-operating expense (benefit) - discontinued operations — — — — — —

Total non-operating expense (benefit) 106 864 ( 53 ) ( 83 ) 18 11

Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) - continuing operations 183 951 ( 17 ) ( 38 ) 32 27

Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) - discontinued operations — 7 — 5 — 1

Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) $ 183 $ 958 $ ( 17 ) $ ( 33 ) $ 32 $ 28

For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, contributions totaling $ 89 million were made to the Company’s U.S.

For the three months ended March 31, 2026, contributions totaling $ 35 million were made to the Company’s U.S.

and international pension plans and $ 3 million to its postretirement plans.

1 unchanged sentence

3M’s annual measurement date for pension and postretirement assets and liabilities is December 31 each year, which is also the date used for the related annual measurement assumptions.

In the third quarter of 2025, 3M modified the postretirement health care plan in the U.S.

that provides a savings account-based benefit to eligible retirees who were employed prior to January 1, 2016.

Beginning in 2026, contributions provided by 3M to the health savings accounts will no longer be increased each year by a notional rate.

The modification required remeasurement of the plan in the third quarter of 2025, resulting in a decrease of approximately $ 110 million in the non-current liability for pension and postretirement benefits (and corresponding decrease in accumulated comprehensive loss, before deferred taxes).

As of March 31, 2024, 3M transferred eligible U.S.

Solventum employees and retirees to new U.S.

defined benefit pension and postretirement plans with the same benefits of their current plans.

The transfer required remeasurement of the plans prior to the calculation of this split.

There were also several small international pension plans remeasured for purposes of transferring Solventum employees to new pension plans.

Additionally in 2024, primarily in the second quarter, 3M recorded a non-cash pension settlement charge of approximately $ 0.8 billion reflected in other expense (income), net as a result of transferring approximately $ 2.5 billion of its U.S.

pension payment obligations and related plan assets to an insurance company.

The pension risk transfer required remeasurement of the plan prior to the calculation of the settlement charge.

Refer to Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information regarding these remeasurements.

Supplier Finance Program Obligations

3M or the banks may terminate the agreements with advance notice.

Separately, the banks may have arrangements with the suppliers that provide them the option to request early payment from the banks for invoices confirmed by 3M.

3M's outstanding balances of confirmed invoices in the programs as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 were approximately $ 0.3 billion.

These amounts are included within accounts payable on 3M's consolidated balance sheet.

The Company uses i nterest rate swaps, cross-currency swaps, and forward and option contracts to manage risks generally associated with foreign exchange rate and interest rate fluctuations.

5 unchanged sentences

• Derivatives and/or hedging instruments associated with the Company’s long-term debt are described in Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Refer to the section below titled Location on Statement of Income and Impact of Cash Flow and Fair Value Derivative Instruments and Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments for details on the location within the consolidated statements of income for amounts of gains and losses related to derivative instruments designated as cash flow or fair value hedges (along with similar information relative to the hedged items) and derivatives not designated as hedging instruments.

Additional information relative to cash flow hedges, fair value hedges, net investment hedges and derivatives not designated as hedging instruments is included below as applicable.

Refer to the section below titled Location on Statement of Income and Impact of Cash Flow Derivative Instruments and Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments for details on the location within the consolidated statements of income for amounts of gains and losses related to derivative instruments both designated and not designated as hedging instruments.

Additional information relative to cash flow hedges, net investment hedges and derivatives not designated as hedging instruments is included below as applicable.

Cash Flow Hedges:

As of September 30, 2025, the Company had a balance of $ 106 million associated with the after-tax net unrealized loss associated with cash flow hedging instruments recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss).

This includes a remaining balance of $ 75 million (after-tax loss) related to forward starting interest rate swap and treasury rate lock contracts terminated in 2019 concurrent with associated debt issuances, which is being amortized over the respective lives of the underlying notes.

Based on exchange rates as of September 30, 2025, of the total after-tax net unrealized balance as of September 30, 2025, 3M expects to reclassify approximately $ 22 million after-tax net unrealized loss over the next 12 months (with the impact offset by earnings/losses from underlying hedged items).

The amount of pretax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) related to derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges is provided in the following table.

Pretax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) on derivatives

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

(Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024

Foreign currency forward/option contracts $ 23 $ ( 70 ) $ ( 82 ) $ 14

Fair Value Hedges:

As further discussed in Note 12, during the third quarter of 2025, 3M terminated half of the fixed-to-floating interest rate swaps that were entered into in 2021, returning $ 400 million of notes due in 2049 to fixed-rate debt.

The following amounts were recorded on the consolidated balance sheet related to cumulative basis adjustments for active fair value hedges, as well as remaining amounts for discontinued fair value hedges:

Carrying value of the hedged (and formerly hedged) liabilities Cumulative amount of fair value hedging adjustment included in carrying value of hedged liabilities for

Location on the consolidated balance sheet (millions) Active hedges Discontinued hedges

September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024

Long-term debt $ 956 $ 924 $ ( 24 ) $ ( 81 ) $ ( 23 ) $ 2

For the periods presented, the amounts of pre-tax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) related to derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges were immaterial .

Net Investment Hedges:

At September 30, 2025, 3M has a principal amount of long-term debt instruments designated in net investment hedges totaling 1.8 billion euros, in addition to the gross notional amount of foreign exchange forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps designated in net investment hedges included in the totals within the "Location, Fair Value, and Gross Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments" table further below.

During 2025, 3M expanded its net investment hedge activity primarily by entering into cross-currency swaps with a gross notional value at inception of $ 1.1 billion ($ 550 million with tenor to 2030 and $ 550 million with tenor to 2035) designated in hedges of portions of its net investment in international subsidiaries.

The amount of gain (loss) excluded from effectiveness testing recognized in income relative to instruments designated in net investment hedge relationships is not material.

The amount of pre-tax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) related to derivative and non-derivative instruments designated as net investment hedges are as follows.

The gross notional amount of foreign exchange forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps designated in net investment hedges is included in the totals within the "Location, Fair Value, and Gross Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments" table further below.

In addition, at March 31, 2026, 3M had a principal amount of long-term debt instruments designated in net investment hedges totaling € 1.8 billion.

During the first quarter of 2026, 3M entered into foreign currency forward contracts and collared foreign currency forward contracts with a gross notional value at inception of $ 4.1 billion designated as hedges of portions of its net investment in international subsidiaries

The amount of gain (loss) excluded from effectiveness testing and recognized in income for instruments designated in net investment hedge relationships was immaterial for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025.

The amounts of pre-tax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) related to derivative and non-derivative instruments designated as net investment hedges are as follows.

Pretax gain (loss) recognized as cumulative translation within other comprehensive income (loss)

Three months ended

September 30, Nine months ended

September 30,

Three months ended March 31,

(Millions) 2026 2025

3 unchanged sentences

Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments:

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments include de-designated foreign currency forward and option contracts that formerly were designated in cash flow hedging relationships (as referenced in the Cash Flow Hedges section above).

In addition, 3M enters into foreign currency contracts that are not designated in hedging relationships to offset, in part, the impacts of changes in value of various non-functional currency denominated items including certain intercompany financing balances.

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments include de-designated foreign currency forward and option contracts that formerly were designated in cash flow hedging relationships.

3M may de-designate a cash flow hedge before the forecasted transaction occurs if the forecasted transaction is no longer probable, if the hedge is no longer expected to be highly effective in offsetting changes in the cash flows of the forecasted transaction, or in certain other circumstances.

In addition, 3M enters into foreign currency contracts that are not designated in hedging relationships to offset changes in the value of various non-functional currency denominated items including certain intercompany financing balances.

These derivative instruments are not designated in hedging relationships;

1 unchanged sentence

The Company does not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading purposes.

Location on Statement of Income and Impact of Cash Flow and Fair Value Derivative Instruments and Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments:

Location and amount of gain (loss) recognized in income

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

Cost of sales Other expense (income), net Cost of sales Other expense (income), net

(Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024

Total consolidated financial statement line item amount $ 3,792 $ 3,647 $ 300 $ ( 405 ) $ 10,916 $ 10,703 $ 378 $ ( 323 )

Pre-tax amounts recognized in income related to derivative instruments

Information regarding cash flow and fair value hedging relationships:

(Gain) or loss on cash flow hedging relationships:

Foreign currency forward/option contracts:

Amount of (gain) or loss reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into income *

2 ( 23 ) — — ( 39 ) ( 84 ) — —

Interest rate contracts:

Amount of (gain) or loss reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into income — — 2 2 — — 6 6

(Gain) or loss on fair value hedging relationships:

Interest rate contracts:

Hedged items — — 32 29 — — 57 20

Derivatives designated as hedging instruments — — ( 32 ) ( 29 ) — — ( 57 ) ( 20 )

Information regarding derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:

(Gain) or loss on derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:

Foreign currency forward/option contracts 2 — 6 ( 13 ) ( 47 ) 7 ( 93 ) ( 7 )

* For periods prior to the April 1, 2024 separation of Solventum, these include certain insignificant amounts attributable to discontinued operations.

Location on Statement of Income and Impact of Cash Flow Derivative Instruments and Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments:

For the periods presented, pre-tax amounts recognized in respective income statement line items were not significant related to derivative instruments in cash flow hedging relationships or regarding derivatives not designated as hedging instruments.

Amounts are reflected in costs of sales and other expense (income), net.

Location, Fair Value, and Gross Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments:

The following tables summarize the fair value of 3M’s derivative instruments, excluding non-derivative instruments used as hedging instruments, and their location in the consolidated balance sheet.

The following table summarizes the fair value of 3M’s derivative instruments, excluding non-derivative instruments used as hedging instruments, and their location in the consolidated balance sheet.

Notional amounts below are presented at period end foreign exchange rates, except for certain interest rate swaps and foreign currency forward/option contracts, which are presented using the foreign exchange rate at inception.

3 unchanged sentences

Location Fair value amount

September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Derivatives designated as hedging instruments

Foreign currency forward/option contracts

Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps

$ 3,438 $ 1,842 Other current assets $ 49 $ 23 Other current liabilities $ 36 $ 35

Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps 11,152 8,194 Other assets 169 161 Other liabilities 244 289

Interest rate contracts 400 800 Other assets — — Other liabilities 23 81

Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments 218 184 280 324

1 unchanged sentence

Foreign currency forward/option contracts 2,603 2,188 Other current assets 14 8 Other current liabilities 17 6

Foreign currency forward/option contracts 1 — Other assets

— — Other liabilities

Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments 3 3 16 13

Total derivative instruments $ 232 $ 192 $ 297 $ 330

12 unchanged sentences

Offsetting of Financial Assets under Master Netting Agreements with Derivative Counterparties

(Millions) Gross Amount of Derivative Assets Presented in the Consolidated Balance Sheet Gross Amount of Eligible Offsetting Recognized Derivative Liabilities Net Amount of Derivative Assets

September 30,

2025 December 31,

2024 September 30,

2025 December 31,

2024 September 30,

2025 December 31,

Gross Amount of Derivative Assets Presented in the Consolidated Balance Sheet Gross Amount of Eligible Offsetting Recognized Derivative Liabilities Net Amount of Derivative Assets

(Millions) March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Derivatives subject to master netting agreements $ 232 $ 192 $ 190 $ 175 $ 42 $ 17

1 unchanged sentence

(Millions) Gross Amount of Derivative Liabilities Presented in the Consolidated Balance Sheet Gross Amount of Eligible Offsetting Recognized Derivative Assets Net Amount of Derivative Liabilities

September 30,

2025 December 31,

2024 September 30,

2025 December 31,

2024 September 30,

2025 December 31,

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025 March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Derivatives subject to master netting agreements $ 297 $ 330 $ 190 $ 175 $ 107 $ 155

Currency Effects:

3M estimates that year-on-year foreign currency transaction effects, including hedging impacts, approximately impacted pre-tax income as follows:

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended

September 30,

(Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024

Year-on-year foreign currency transaction effects on pre-tax income $ ( 30 ) $ ( 21 ) $ ( 55 ) $ ( 40 )

3M estimates that year-on-year foreign currency transaction effects, impacted pre-tax income (loss) approximately as follows.

These estimates include transaction gains and losses, including derivative instruments designed to reduce foreign currency exchange rate risks.

Fair Value Measurements

Three months ended March 31,

(Millions) 2026 2025

Year-on-year change in pre-tax income (loss) from foreign currency transactions

Fair Value Measurements and Marketable Securities

3M follows ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, with respect to assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis and nonrecurring basis.

Refer to Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K for a qualitative discussion of the assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring and nonrecurring basis, a description of the valuation methodologies used by 3M, and categorization within the valuation framework of ASC 820.

The following table provides information by level for material assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024.

The following table provides information by level for material assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis at March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025.

Fair value at Fair value measurements using inputs considered as

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

(Millions) September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024

(Millions) March 31,

2026 December 31,

2025 March 31,

2026 December 31,

2025 March 31,

2026 December 31,

2025 March 31,

2026 December 31,

Available-for-sale marketable securities:

Asset backed securities

$ 49 $ 24 $ — $ — $ 49 $ 24 $ — $ —

Foreign corporate debt

7 31 — — 7 31 — —

government securities

89 138 89 138 — — — —

Corporate debt securities 210 819 — — 210 819 — —

Marketable securities:

Corporate debt $ 234 $ 302 $ — $ — $ 234 $ 302 $ — $ —

Commercial paper 54 191 — — 54 191 — —

Certificates of deposit/time deposits 63 185 — — 63 185 — —

treasury securities 12 269 12 269 — — — —

government and treasury securities 8 53 8 53 — — — —

Asset backed securities and certificates of/time deposits 119 148 — — 119 148 — —

municipal securities 16 16 — — — — 16 16

Solventum common stock 1,867 2,270 1,867 2,270 — — — —

Total marketable securities 431 710 8 53 407 641 16 16

Solventum common stock (a)

1,670 2,026 1,670 2,026 — — — —

Derivative instruments — assets:

2 unchanged sentences

Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps 297 330 — — 297 330 — —

Interest rate contracts 23 81 — — 23 81 — —

(a) Solventum common stock is reflected within other current assets on 3M's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025.

The Company had no material activity with level 3 assets and liabilities during the periods presented.

In addition, the plan assets of 3M’s pension and postretirement benefit plans are measured at fair value on a recurring basis (at least annually).

Marketable Securities:

At March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, gross unrealized, gross realized, and net realized gains and/or losses (pre-tax) were no t material.

The balances at March 31, 2026 for marketable securities by contractual maturity are shown below.

Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities because the issuers of the securities may have the right to prepay obligations without prepayment penalties.

Due in one year or less $ 310

Due after one year through five years 121

Total marketable securities $ 431

Assets and Liabilities that are Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis:

Other than the below, 3M had no material measurements at fair value on a nonrecurring basis of applicable assets or liabilities for the third quarter and first nine months of 2025 and 2024.

Other than the below, 3M had no material measurements at fair value on a nonrecurring basis of applicable assets or liabilities for the first quarter of 2026 and 2025.

In the third quarter of 2025, 3M's precision grinding and finishing business was classified as held for sale and written down to its fair value less costs to sell.

6 unchanged sentences

The fair value of long-term notes receivable approximates the carrying value.

Available-for-sale marketable securities and Solventum common stock are recorded at fair values as indicated in the preceding disclosures, in addition to certain investments and derivative instruments.

Available-for-sale marketable securities, Solventum common stock and derivative instruments are recorded at fair values as indicated in the preceding disclosures, in addition to certain investments.

To estimate fair values (classified as level 2) for its long-term debt, the Company utilized third-party quotes, which are derived all or in part from model prices, external sources, market prices, or the third-party’s internal records.

Information with respect to the carrying amounts and estimated fair values of these financial instruments follow:

September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024

(Millions) Carrying value

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

(Millions) Carrying value Fair value

Carrying value

4 unchanged sentences

Commitments and Contingencies

This Note is organized to:

• provide background on the Company's legal proceedings and the processes for disclosing and recording related liabilities;

• present the Company's legal proceedings and contingencies, including any liabilities recorded by the Company, by category:

environmental matters, non-environmental product matters, and other matters;

• describe insurance recoveries related to the disclosed legal proceedings 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;

Background of the Company's Legal Proceedings

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous claims, legal proceedings, and investigations worldwide.

These matters may include, among others, commercial disputes;

products liability (involving products that the Company now or formerly manufactured and sold);

5 unchanged sentences

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;

international trade and sanctions compliance;

laws and regulations applicable 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.

Unless otherwise stated, the Company is vigorously defending these matters.

From time to time, the Company receives subpoenas, investigative demands, or requests for information from, and self-discloses potential concerns to, government authorities in the United States and foreign countries, which may result in assertions of claims, initiations of administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings, or negotiated resolutions.

The Company generally seeks to respond 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.

In response, the Company or its subsidiaries may engage in respect of such matters where it believes it would be appropriate.

Any determination that the Company’s operations or activities are not, or were not, in compliance with applicable laws or regulations could result in fines, civil and/or criminal penalties, equitable remedies, including disgorgement, suspension and debarment, and injunctive relief.

The outcomes of legal proceedings and investigations are inherently uncertain, difficult to predict, and could have a material adverse effect on the Company, its consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

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.

Assessments of lawsuits and claims can involve a series of complex judgments about future events and can rely heavily on many different 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.

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 or ranges of possibles losses, which is further complicated 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.

The Company records accruals for legal proceeding liabilities in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance.

Accruals are recorded when the loss is both probable and reasonably estimable.

When the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the Company records an accrual at the low end of the range.

The Company discloses the amount of a possible loss or range of loss in excess of recorded accruals when the amounts are reasonably estimable, or states that an estimate cannot be made.

The Company also discloses significant legal proceedings if the Company believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, even when liability is not probable or the loss amount is not reasonably estimable, or both.

Based on experience and developments, the Company reassesses its estimates of probable losses, accruals, and associated expenses and receivables each reporting period, and the status of a loss previously determined to not be probable, reasonably estimable, or both, to determine whether the status of that loss has changed.

Where appropriate, the Company makes additions to or adjustments of its reasonably estimated losses and accruals.

As a result, the current accruals and estimates of loss may change over time and 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 are likely to change over time.

Because litigation is inherently uncertain, unfavorable rulings, developments, or settlements could result in charges substantially in excess of amounts currently accrued, including for matters for which no accruals are currently recorded because losses are not currently probable or reasonably estimable.

Many of the matters described in this Note 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.

1 unchanged sentence

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.

However, even when a loss or range of loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, 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 September 30, 2025, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 3,600 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 expected to resume in November 2025.

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 nine months of 2025 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $ 28 million, and made payments for legal defense costs and settlements of $ 80 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation.

As of September 30, 2025, the Company had an accrual for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of $ 471 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 September 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 related 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.

The Company estimates insurance receivables based on the terms of its insurance policies, including applicable coverage limits and exclusions, relevant case law, experience with similar claims, and the nature of the underlying matters.

The Company records as an insurance receivable an amount it concludes is recognizable and expects to receive in light of the applicable loss recovery and gain contingency models under ASC 450, ASC 610-30, and related guidance.

For insured matters where the Company has recorded an accrued liability in its financial statements, the Company also records an insurance receivable for the amount it concludes is recognizable.

For insured matters where the Company has not recorded an accrued liability but has incurred defense expenses, the Company records an insurance receivable for the amount it concludes is recognizable for the expense incurred.

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 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.

In the European Union, 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.

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, future compliance costs, possible litigation and/or enforcement actions.

In addition, in April 2025, EU member states adopted a REACH amendment to restrict the manufacturing, use and placing on the market of all PFAS substances in Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF").

There is a general 5-year transition plan, with shorter and longer transitional periods for certain uses.

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.

On July 21, 2025, Dyneon was served with an order requiring it to plan a hydraulic barrier to capture a PFOA plume in groundwater originating from the Dyneon site.

On August 6, 2025, Dyneon was served with an order requiring it to:

(1) assess measures to remediate the impact of PFOA in an area determined by a detailed soil investigation conducted in 2018;

(2) delineate the area of PFOA impact beyond the area identified in the 2018 investigation using a more sensitive metric for soil contamination;

and (3) submit an investigation concept for the assessment of the soil-food crop exposure pathway.

A company that formerly operated PFAS-related manufacturing at the current Dyneon site received an identical order.

On August 18, 2025, Dyneon filed an appeal of the July 21 order.

On September 10, 2025, Dyneon filed an appeal of the August 6 order.

The appeals suspend the enforceability of the orders pending a decision at the first level of judicial review.

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 setting 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.

Following the Flemish Government’s June 2025 announcement of the intent to withdraw the temporary action framework, in September 2025, the Flemish Government formally adopted and then published the withdrawal triggering a 60 day period in which an appeal could be filed.

3M Belgium is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this regulatory review 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

As of September 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.

In July 2025, Dyneon received pre-litigation notices from two cities in Germany, as well as a private citizen, requesting payment for alleged costs incurred/expected from handling PFAS impacted soil during construction works.

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 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 and August 2025, putative class actions were filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench and British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of Indian bands in Canada.

The lawsuits seek 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, plaintiffs filed a motion to discontinue the Ontario action.

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.

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 as a result of firefighting training at the Canadian Forces Detachment Mountain View.

In March 2025, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Health Canada announced plans to add PFAS as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and to enact a phased ban of certain PFAS in products.

Depending on the timing, scope, and obligations contained in any final ban, PFAS manufacturers and manufacturers of products containing PFAS could incur additional costs and potential exposures, including costs of having to discontinue or modify products.

In May 2025, the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency issued a Clean Up Notice requiring 3M Australia to investigate and clean up PFAS contamination at a site that 3M Australia formerly leased.

3M submitted a work plan for a site investigation in July 2025.

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, the Company 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 the hazard index standard for a combination of PFAS.

In September 2025, EPA filed a motion asking the Court to vacate the standards for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and the hazard index standard and confirming that it intends to defend the standards for PFOA and PFOS.

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.

In September 2025, EPA confirmed it intends to defend the rule.

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 2025, EPA sent a draft proposal to modify the rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

EPA’s description of the proposal indicates it includes certain exemptions and other modifications to the scope of the original rule.

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.

The Company submitted comments 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 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.

In September 2025, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the lower court's decision.

Multiple 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, Minnesota and New Mexico have enacted laws that include broad PFAS prohibition and reporting obligations.

In addition, multiple other states, including Colorado, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, 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.

In September 2025, the New Mexico Environment Department announced it intends to require labeling for all products containing intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2027.

3M continues to evaluate the potential impact of these laws on its operations and 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.

Background of Environmental Laws and Regulations

The Company’s operations are subject to a broad range of environmental laws and regulations in the United States and internationally, including those relating to air emissions, wastewater discharges, the manufacture, use, handling, and disposal of toxic or hazardous substances, and the management of solid and hazardous wastes.

These laws and regulations are enforced by national, state, and local authorities around the world and, in certain jurisdictions, may also provide rights of action to private parties.

Compliance with environmental laws and regulations may require the Company to incur costs for investigation, remediation, capital investments, operational modifications, and the defense or resolution of claims involving alleged environmental contamination, natural resources damages, personal injury, and property damages.

The Company has incurred, and expects to continue to incur, costs for environmental compliance, claims, defense, remediation, business modifications, and damages as part of its ongoing operations.

The Company maintains policies and procedures designed to support compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and periodically updates those policies as laws, regulations, and business operations continue to evolve worldwide.

Under certain environmental laws, including the U.S.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") and similar state and foreign 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.

The Company has identified numerous locations around the world at which it has or may have liability for remediating contamination under

applicable environmental laws.

Information regarding the Company's environmental accruals and related estimation considerations is provided in “ Environmental Liabilities.

This section describes the Company’s legal matters relating to various per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (collectively, "PFAS").

PFAS refers to a broad category of compounds that encompass thousands of materials with distinct and widely varying properties and profiles.

Examples include perfluorooctanoate ("PFOA"), perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"), perfluorohexanoic acid ("PFHxA"), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), perfluorobutane sulfonate ("PFBS"), perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO-DA,”) and commercially known as “Gen-X”), perfluorobutane sulfonamide (“FBSA”), perfluorobutane sulfonamido diethanol (“FBSEE”), and certain perfluoro carboxylic acids ("PFCAs"), including C9-C14 and other long-chain PFCAs ("LC-PFCAs").

The Company's Actions Related to PFAS

The Company has voluntarily cooperated, and continues to cooperate, with reviews by local, state, federal (including the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")), and international authorities regarding the possible environmental and health effects of certain PFAS.

In May 2000, the Company announced a decision to phase-out certain PFAS compounds including PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and their precursor compounds globally as a precautionary measure.

Within approximately two years of the announcement, the Company ceased manufacturing and using the vast majority of those compounds and completed the phase-out of remaining manufacturing and significant use by the end of 2008.

In December 2022, the Company announced its intent to exit all PFAS manufacturing and to work toward discontinuing PFAS use across its product portfolio by the end of 2025.

The Company completed its exit from PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025.

The Company will continue to take actions to address PFAS manufactured prior to the exit.

For example, the Company's water treatment assets at facilities that manufactured PFAS will continue to treat PFAS from historical manufacturing activities and remediate residual PFAS in waste streams from the Company's operations.

The Company also will continue to work through the disposition of its assets and its interests in manufacturing facilities, which may include dismantling, cleaning and repurposing, and other dispositions of facilities or equipment.

The Company remains in ongoing discussions with customers, government authorities, and other stakeholders and interested parties about customer agreements and the Company's interests in assets and facilities, which may be owned or leased from other parties that have interests and rights related to those facilities, including their future ownership.

The Company has made substantial progress in eliminating PFAS use across its product portfolio.

For PFAS-containing components not manufactured by the Company but used within its supply chain, the Company continues to evaluate the availability and feasibility of PFAS alternatives.

In certain cases, PFAS-containing third-party products (such as lithium ion batteries, printed circuit boards, certain seals and gaskets, and other products widely used in commerce across a variety of industries) will continue to be used beyond the end of 2025 due to technological constraints, regulatory or industry standards, or the need for customer transitions, certifications, or approvals.

Transitional efforts related to products manufactured prior to the end of 2025 and customer conversion processes also remain ongoing.

Background on Global PFAS Regulatory and Legislative Activity

Regulatory and legislative activities relating to PFAS continue to expand in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, Latin America, and other jurisdictions, at the national, state, and local levels, as well as before certain international bodies.

These activities include information-gathering initiatives, risk assessments, remediation requirements, and increasingly stringent restrictions on PFAS manufacturing, emissions, environmental releases, and product uses.

Regulatory limits for PFAS in emissions and in environmental media (including soil, groundwater, surface water, and drinking water) are being established at progressively lower levels, in some cases approaching limits that exceed current analytical detection capabilities.

Regulatory focus has also broadened to include a wider range of PFAS compounds, including substances previously manufactured by the Company prior to its exit from PFAS manufacturing, contained in third-party materials used in the Company's current products, or associated with the Company's legacy manufacturing activities.

In certain jurisdictions, proposed legislation may authorize recovery of healthcare or related public costs allegedly associated with PFAS exposure.

Regulatory or legislative changes could expand the Company's potential PFAS-related liability, including for activities prior to the Company's exit from PFAS manufacturing.

For example, as a result of the CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances in 2024, and to the extent the EPA finalizes additional proposals related to PFAS, the Company may be required to undertake additional investigative, compliance, and remediation activities, including where the Company conducts operations or where the Company has disposed of waste.

The Company may also face additional litigation for contribution claims sought by other potentially responsible parties for their increased costs.

The Company cannot predict what additional PFAS-related regulatory or legislative actions in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere arising from the matters disclosed in this Note or other proceedings and activities, if any, may be taken, or the consequences of any such actions to the Company, including to its 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, 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.

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.

The City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama filed a substantially similar lawsuit in February 2023.

3M removed both cases to federal court in August 2024, and the JPML transferred the cases to the AFFF MDL in December 2024.

In April 2025, Colbert County and the City of Muscle Shoals filed a joint motion to remand the two cases to state court.

3M has responded to that motion, which remains pending.

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.

As regulatory requirements continue to evolve and become enforceable, the Company may incur material costs to comply with new standards, undertake investigative or remedial actions, or respond to regulatory enforcement or related litigation.

Regulatory developments may also affect the Company's litigation exposure, public perception, and compliance and remedial costs, particularly where legal defenses rely on regulatory thresholds that may change over time.

Given divergent and rapidly evolving global PFAS standards, significant uncertainty remains regarding those factors and associated costs.

PFAS Litigation, Investigations, and Other Activities in the United States

Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF") Litigation and the AFFF MDL

In December 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") approved motions to transfer and consolidate all aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF") cases pending in federal courts into the multidistrict litigation proceeding (the "AFFF MDL") in the U.S.

District Court for the District of South Carolina (the "AFFF MDL Court") to centralize pre-trial proceedings.

As of April 1, 2026, based upon information published by the JPML, approximately 15,200 cases relating in whole or in part to alleged PFAS contamination or exposure associated with AFFF were pending in the AFFF MDL.

Many personal injury cases, both inside and outside the AFFF MDL, include multiple plaintiffs, so the number of plaintiffs asserting AFFF-related claims is substantially higher than the number of cases published by the JPML.

Claims in the AFFF MDL have been asserted by individuals, public water suppliers, putative class members, state and territorial sovereigns, and other entities.

Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including damages for personal injury, property damage, water treatment costs, medical monitoring, natural resource damages, and punitive damages.

Additional AFFF-related cases have been filed in state and other federal courts.

The parties in the AFFF MDL have conducted, or continue to conduct, master discovery and case-specific discovery for various categories of cases.

The Company generally seeks, where possible, to remove and transfer AFFF-related cases to the AFFF MDL and the vast majority of pending AFFF-related cases are being litigated in the AFFF MDL.

The Company also continues to defend certain AFFF-related matters that remain in state court and engages in discussions with pre-suit claimants 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.

In September 2022, the AFFF MDL Court denied defendants' AFFF MDL-wide summary judgment motions on the government contractor defense, although the defense may be presented to a jury at future trials.

AFFF MDL and Water System Cases

In June 2023, the Company entered into a class-action settlement to resolve a wide range of drinking water claims by eligible public water suppliers ("PWS") in the United States (the “PWS Settlement”).

The AFFF MDL Court approved the PWS Settlement in March 2024 and it became effective in May 2024.

The PWS Settlement provides that the Company does not admit any liability or wrongdoing and does not waive any defenses.

Following the PWS Settlement, certain PWS cases remain pending, including matters brought by water suppliers that did not qualify as eligible claimants under the PWS Settlement and those that did not participate in the PWS Settlement, which includes cases pending in both the AFFF MDL and various federal and state courts.

Under the PWS Settlement, the Company will pay $ 10.5 billion to $ 12.5 billion in total to resolve released claims.

The Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $ 10.3 billion in the second quarter of 2023, reflecting the discounted present value (discounted at an estimated 5.2 % interest rate at the time of proposed settlement) of the expected $ 12.5 billion nominal value of the payments.

Under the PWS Settlement, as amended to include payments to certain other water providers, payments are scheduled from 2024 through 2036.

The ultimate amount payable will be determined in part based on PFAS testing results received by certain class members by the end of 2025, and class members seeking compensation based on those results must submit them to the PWS Settlement's claims administrator by July 31, 2026.

AFFF MDL Personal Injury Cases

In December 2023, the AFFF MDL parties selected an initial set of 25 plaintiffs for potential bellwether AFFF-related personal injury cases (the "Initial AFFF Personal Injury Bellwether Group").

In March 2024, the AFFF MDL Court established a process applicable to most personal injury claims for diseases not included in the Initial AFFF Personal Injury Bellwether Group and four additional diseases.

The process resulted in dismissal without prejudice of thousands of personal injury claims and includes a tolling provision for certain dismissed claims filed in or transferred to the AFFF MDL by April 24, 2024.

In July 2024, the AFFF MDL Court selected 9 cases in the Initial AFFF Personal Injury Bellwether Group for additional discovery, including expert discovery.

In January 2025, the AFFF MDL Court set a first bellwether personal injury trial for October 2025, and in May 2025, indicated that the trial would involve one or more of three kidney cancer plaintiffs.

The AFFF MDL Court conducted a "Science Day" in June 2025 regarding liver and thyroid cancers.

In August 2025, the AFFF MDL Court vacated the schedule for the first bellwether personal injury trial that was to begin in October 2025.

No new trial date has been set.

In August 2025, the AFFF MDL Court also entered orders relating to filing personal injury cases in the AFFF MDL and requesting transfer of certain categories of cases, including those involving firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, to the AFFF MDL.

Following those orders, thousands of additional plaintiffs filed claims in the AFFF MDL.

The orders also impose certain information requirements on plaintiffs.

The JPML case counts for the AFFF MDL have remained relatively stable since November 2025.

In February 2026, the AFFF MDL Court entered an order to address noncompliance with those information requirements, including an opportunity to cure certain noncompliance.

Noncompliant plaintiffs may be subject to further proceedings or dismissal by the AFFF MDL Court.

At the AFFF MDL Court's direction, the parties continue to participate in court-ordered settlement discussions regarding the personal injury claims.

Those ongoing discussions are being facilitated by a court-appointed mediator.

In November 2024, the AFFF MDL Court directed the parties to develop a process to select sites allegedly contaminated with PFAS from AFFF for focused product identification discovery.

In April 2025, the AFFF MDL Court entered a case management order identifying 12 sites for product-identification discovery.

Discovery relating to these sites concluded in December 2025, and the parties are discussing next steps, if any, relating to these sites.

Other AFFF Cases

In June 2019, subsidiaries of Valero Energy Corporation, an independent petroleum refiner, filed eight AFFF-related cases against the Company and other defendants, including DuPont/Chemours, National Foam, Buckeye Fire Equipment, and Kidde-Fenwal, in various state courts seeking damages allegedly incurred or to be incurred in investigating and remediating PFAS contamination at their properties and replacing or disposing of AFFF products containing long-chain PFAS compounds.

Two cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL, one was voluntarily dismissed, and the remaining five state court cases are stayed by the parties' agreement.

The Company is aware of other AFFF-related suits outside the AFFF MDL.

The Company expects to seek removal to federal court and transfer to the AFFF MDL for most of these AFFF-related cases, where available.

However, some cases may remain pending in state courts.

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.

Overview and Relationship to AFFF MDL

As previously reported, several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against the Company and other defendants alleging PFAS contamination.

Certain matters are pending in the AFFF MDL, while others are proceeding outside the AFFF MDL.

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.

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.

The state court has set a Spring 2029 trial ready date for the matter.

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 federal court, following 3M's July 2025 second removal of the case and an August 2025 ruling by a federal court of appeals granting 3M's appeal of an order remanding a first removal petition filed by 3M.

A hearing on the State's renewed motion to remand is scheduled for December 3, 2025 and thus the state court trial will not proceed in accordance with the trial-readiness date of November 7, 2025.

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.

Cases at times are moved to the AFFF MDL or remanded to another venue, such as a state court.

These 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.

State attorneys general lawsuits pending in the AFFF MDL include actions 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 Settlement

In March 2019, the New Jersey Attorney General filed two actions against the Company on behalf of New Jersey and certain of its departments regarding alleged PFAS discharges at two facilities:

the "Chambers Works Facility" in Salem County and the "Parlin Facility" in Middlesex County, neither of which the Company ever owned or operated, based on allegations that the Company supplied PFAS to those facilities, which was then discharged into the environment.

In May 2025, the Company agreed to a proposed judicial consent order with New Jersey (the "New Jersey Settlement"), subject to public notice and comment and approval by the U.S.

District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "D.N.J.

If approved by the D.N.J.

Court and conditions are satisfied, New Jersey and its departments would dismiss with prejudice the two actions and New Jersey’s pending AFFF MDL case against the Company.

The New Jersey Settlement would also resolve broader New Jersey statewide current and future PFAS-related claims.

The New Jersey Settlement is not an admission of liability by the Company.

Pursuant to the New Jersey Settlement, the Company agreed to pay New Jersey up to $ 450 million.

The Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $ 281 million in the second quarter of 2025, reflecting the discounted present value of the $ 400 million amount the Company expects to pay ( discounted at an estimated 5.0 % blended interest rate at the time of proposed settlement).

The New Jersey Settlement entered in May 2025 includes payments with then-present values of $ 207 million beginning in 2026 over 8 years for the Chambers Works Facility and other elements and $ 74 million beginning in 2030 and running through 2050 for existing and future PFAS-related claims by New Jersey.

The actual amount payable by the Company will be determined in part based on the Company's ultimate obligations under the PWS Settlement and may be reduced by certain credits towards its payment obligations under the New Jersey Settlement based on other contingencies.

Court held a hearing in January

After New Jersey and objectors to the New Jersey Settlement submitted additional information, the D.N.J.

Court scheduled a hearing for June 2026.

Additional State Attorneys General Matters Outside of AFFF MDL

Additional state attorneys general lawsuits outside the AFFF MDL are described below.

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.

In January 2024, the Connecticut Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an appeal.

The federal court of appeals held a hearing on the Company's appeal in November 2025.

In March 2022, the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against the Company alleging contamination of the state's natural resources by PFAS compounds disposed of by, or discharged, or emitted from the Company's facility in Cordova, Illinois (the "Cordova Facility").

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.

The case currently is set for trial in September 2026.

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 federal court, following 3M's September 2025 second removal of the case.

The federal court of appeals held a hearing on 3M's appeal of the order remanding 3M's first removal on October 6, 2025.

The case is proceeding with discovery on the claims remaining after the state court dismissed the state's strict liability and trespass claims in December 2024.

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.

The State has indicated that it will file a petition for review by the U.S.

Supreme Court.

In August 2024, a federal court of appeals 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 the Company.

In October 2025, the Company re-removed the case to federal court.

In November 2025, the federal court remanded the case back to state court.

The Company's appeal of that decision remains pending before the federal court of appeals.

In the interim, the case is proceeding in state court.

In February 2026, the state court set a trial date for March 2027.

In March 2023, the Maine Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an appeal, which the federal court of appeals granted in November 2025.

In April 2026, the JPML transferred the case to the AFFF MDL.

In May 2023, the Maryland Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an appeal.

In March 2025, the federal court of appeals reversed the prior remand decision.

Maryland filed a petition for review by the U.S.

Supreme Court in October 2025, which was denied in March 2026.

The Company's motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL is pending.

New Hampshire:

In May 2019, the New Hampshire Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an appeal, which the federal court of appeals denied in March 2025.

The state court has set a Spring 2029 trial ready date.

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.

The State has indicated that it will file a petition for review by the U.S.

Supreme Court.

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.

The federal court of appeals set a hearing on 3M's appeal of the remand order for November 20, 2025.

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.

Following 3M’s removal of the case to federal court, the federal court remanded the matter to state court.

3M filed an application for leave to appeal to the federal court of appeals in September 2025.

In January 2024, the Oklahoma Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the AFFF MDL alleging contamination of the state’s drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products.

In August 2025, the Oklahoma Attorney General filed a second lawsuit in Oklahoma state court, which 3M removed to federal court in September 2025.

In October 2025, 3M filed a motion to dismiss, and the State filed a motion to remand the case to state court.

Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Litigation

As of September 30, 2025, according to data compiled by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, there are more than 13,900 cases related in whole or in part, to PFAS contamination or exposure allegedly caused by AFFF pending in a consolidated multi-district litigation ("MDL") in federal court in South Carolina.

These cases are in addition to cases that have been filed in state and other federal courts which also allege such injuries or damages (along with purported unfiled personal injury claims).

Many of the personal injury cases both inside and outside the MDL have included and continue to include multiple plaintiffs and, therefore, the number of plaintiffs who have asserted such claims is substantially higher than the number of cases noted above.

With respect to cases filed outside the MDL, 3M continues, where possible, to seek the transfer of those matters into the MDL and the vast majority of the pending cases are being litigated in 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.

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.

In June 2023, 3M entered into a class-action settlement to resolve a wide range of drinking water claims by public water suppliers ("PWS") 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 including cases brought by water suppliers that did not qualify as eligible claimants and water suppliers 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 August 2025, the Court entered an order vacating the schedule for the first bellwether trial that had been scheduled to begin in October 2025.

Also in August 2025, the Court entered orders relating to the filing of personal injury cases in the MDL and requesting the transfer of certain types of cases, including cases involving firefighter turnout gear, to the MDL.

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 five 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 as well as tobacco, which is set for trial in September 2026.

In August 2023, the South Carolina Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to the AFFF MDL.

Following the AFFF MDL Court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an appeal.

In March 2025, the federal court of appeals reversed the prior remand decision.

South Carolina filed a petition for review by the U.S.

Supreme Court in October 2025, which was denied in March 2026.

In April 2026, the AFFF MDL Court denied South Carolina's motion to remand the case to state court.

In December 2024, the Texas Attorney General filed a consumer protection lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, the Company filed an application for leave to appeal, which the federal court of appeals denied in October 2025.

After the state court denied the Company's January 2026 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Company filed an appeal in February 2026.

In June 2019, the Vermont Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which the Company removed to federal court.

In December 2025, the federal court held a hearing on Vermont's motion to remand the case to state court.

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.

For example, in September 2025, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe filed suit against 3M and several other defendants alleging harm to its drinking water and other natural resources.

The Tribe also alleges adverse health impacts from PFAS contamination.

The case was removed to federal court and tagged for transfer to the MDL in October 2025.

However, some of the cases initially filed outside the MDL 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 certain forms of PFAS 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, are defending several court cases brought by municipal water utilities.

The plaintiffs in three of these cases (Shelby/Talladega Counties, Five Star Water Supply District, and City of Clanton WWSB) 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.

3M removed these cases to federal court.

Plaintiffs have moved to remand the Shelby/Talladega Counties case, which has been stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in the Town of Pine Hill appeal (discussed below).

Plaintiffs filed motions to remand both the Five Star and City of Clanton cases in September 2025.

The City of Albertville, Alabama filed suit in Alabama state court for alleged contamination of the Tennessee River (upstream of 3M’s Decatur facility) by a carpet manufacturer in Alabama.

Since 2017, numerous other PFAS-related lawsuits naming the Company and others as co-defendant have been filed outside the AFFF MDL in state and federal courts across the U.S.

by a variety of plaintiffs, including individuals, putative class actions, mass tort actions, and drinking water providers that opted out of the PWS Settlement.

The Company expects to seek removal to federal court and transfer to the AFFF MDL for most of the cases that relate to AFFF, where available.

However, some of the cases initially filed outside the AFFF MDL are likely to remain in state or federal courts outside the AFFF MDL.

These PFAS-related lawsuits allege, among other things, that:

improper disposal by the Company or third parties of certain forms of PFAS manufactured by the Company contaminated water, soil, or biosolids;

the Company failed to warn third parties and the plaintiffs about the hazards of improper product disposal;

products containing PFAS caused harm;

and the plaintiffs suffered damages, including personal injury, property damage, loss of use and enjoyment of their properties, diminished property values, investigation and remediation costs, and medical monitoring costs.

Some of the suits involve claims under the U.S.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, as amended ("RICO") and state conspiracy laws, product liability, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices.

These lawsuits name different companies as co-defendants, including DuPont/Chemours, and various carpet, paper and textile manufacturers.

Historical PFAS Manufacturing Operations in Alabama (Decatur):

As previously reported, the Company resolved numerous claims relating to alleged PFAS contamination of properties and water supplies associated with its Decatur, Alabama facility (the "Decatur Facility"), and continues to make payments pursuant to those resolutions.

The Company continues efforts to address PFAS at certain other closed municipal sites at which the Company historically disposed of waste and conduct environmental characterization that complements the interim consent order (the "ADEM ICO") the Company entered into with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM") in July 2020, including sampling of environmental media for presence of PFAS and support for appropriate remedial actions.

See "Other PFAS-related Matters—Alabama (Decatur)" for more information about the Decatur Facility.

In August 2022, Colbert County, Alabama, filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging that discharge from operations in Decatur, Alabama had contaminated the Tennessee River, from which the County draws its drinking water.

The City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama filed a similar lawsuit in February 2023.

The Company removed both cases to federal court in August 2024, and the JPML transferred them to the AFFF MDL in December 2024.

In April 2025, the plaintiffs moved to remand the two cases to state court, which the AFFF MDL Court denied in March 2026.

Since December 2023, a number of personal injury actions have also been filed against the Company and other defendants, alleging exposure to PFAS from operations in Decatur.

The Company removed these cases to federal court, where they were transferred to the AFFF MDL, and plaintiffs have moved to remand most of these matters back to state court.

Additional Litigation:

In Alabama, the Company, together with multiple co-defendants, are defending several lawsuits brought by municipal water utilities, including Shelby and Talladega Counties in April 2023, Five Star Water Supply District in August 2025, City of Clanton Water Works & Sewer Board in August 2025, and Coosa Valley Water Supply District in September 2025.

The plaintiffs in these four cases allege that the discharge of PFAS has contaminated drinking water supplies of cities located downstream along the Coosa River in Alabama.

The Company removed these cases to federal court.

The plaintiffs moved to remand all of these cases to state court, but were denied without prejudice and all of the cases have been stayed pending the ruling by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("Eleventh Circuit") in the Pine Hill Appeal (described below).

The Company filed a notice with the JPML seeking to transfer three of these cases (Shelby and Talladega Counties, City of Clanton Water Works & Sewer Board, and Coosa Valley Water Supply District) to the AFFF MDL.

The JPML transferred all three cases to the AFFF MDL in April 2026.

In March 2024, the City of Albertville, Alabama filed a lawsuit in Alabama state court against the Company and other defendants for alleged contamination of the Tennessee River (upstream of the Decatur Facility) by a carpet manufacturer in Alabama that used PFAS allegedly supplied by the defendants.

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, Alabama filed suit in Alabama state court alleging 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.

The court dismissed plaintiff’s private nuisance and trespass claims, but allowed remaining claims to proceed.

A scheduling order has been entered, but no trial date has been set and fact discovery is ongoing.

In April 2024, the Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners of the City of Mobile, Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Alabama state court alleging that the 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 the Company’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 in Alabama state court 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 granted plaintiff’s motion to remand.

3M filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the district court granted 3M’s motion to stay the remand order.

In July 2024, the Town of Pine Hill, Alabama ("Pine Hill") filed a lawsuit in Alabama state court against the Company and other defendants alleging that PFAS discharges from paper mills currently owned by International Paper contaminated its water supply.

The Company removed the case to federal district court.

In March 2025, the federal district court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court.

The Company filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, and the federal district court granted the Company’s motion to stay the remand order (the "Pine Hill Appeal").

Briefing in the Eleventh Circuit was completed in August 2025.

In June 2025, the state court ruled that it could proceed with discovery notwithstanding the federal district court’s stay of the remand order.

In July 2025, defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Alabama Supreme Court challenging that state-court ruling and the Alabama Supreme Court has issued an order requiring a response to the Writ.

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 in August 2025, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand was denied.

In September 2025, the case was stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Pine Hill .

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.

Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, and in September 2025, the case was stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Pine Hill .

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 in July 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 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.

In June 2025, the state court ruled that Pine Hill could proceed with discovery notwithstanding the federal district court’s stay of the remand order.

In July 2025, defendants filed a petition in the Alabama Supreme Court challenging that state court ruling.

Both the Pine Hill Appeal before the Eleventh Circuit and the petition before the Alabama Supreme Court have been fully briefed and remain pending.

The Alabama Supreme Court stayed the underlying case, pending decision on the Company's petition.

Oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit is scheduled for May 2026.

In August 2024, the City of Irondale, Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging PFAS contamination of its water supply due to industrial discharges from several users of PFAS in different industries, including the Company's alleged customers.

The Company removed the case to federal court and, in August 2025, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand was denied.

In September 2025, the case was stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in the Pine Hill Appeal.

The Company filed a notice with the JPML seeking to transfer this case to the AFFF MDL.

The JPML transferred the case to the AFFF MDL in April 2026.

In May 2025 the City of Foley, Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging that releases by users of PFAS in local manufacturing operations contaminated groundwater used for drinking water supplies.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in July 2025.

In January 2026, the court granted the Company’s and other supplier defendants’ motions to dismiss.

One defendant remains in the action, preventing the dismissal order from becoming final.

The Company is also defending a mass tort action lawsuit 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.

The Company removed the case to federal court, where the case was proceeding through discovery.

In December 2025, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations prior to the filing of the complaint.

In April 2026, the Court granted the Company's motion without prejudice.

In November 2025, the City of Fresno, California filed a lawsuit against the Company and multiple other defendants alleging that various industrial PFAS discharges contaminated the city's drinking water.

The Company removed the case to federal court in December 2025.

In April 2026, the JPML transferred the case to the AFFF MDL.

In March 2026, a putative nationwide class action was filed against the Company and numerous other defendants in California District Court on behalf of all entities who bought firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the turnout gear and claims under RICO and common law conspiracy, product liability, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices laws.

In June 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and numerous other defendants by individual firefighters and several firefighter unions, alleging exposure to PFAS from certain firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, worn by the class members.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in April 2025.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2025, which remains pending.

In February 2026, the plaintiffs dismissed all purchaser plaintiffs, who were subsequently added to the putative class action pending in Montana.

No scheduling order has been entered.

In May 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed alleging PFAS contamination of the class's 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 the Company's motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claim, and the only remaining claims in the case are against a defendant other than the Company.

In Georgia, the Company and other defendants are defending a putative class action lawsuit filed in federal court in February 2021, 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 trial is expected in 2026.

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.

Discovery is finished and briefing on dispositive motions concluded in July 2025.

Those motions remain pending.

No trial date has been set.

Another lawsuit currently pending in federal court in Georgia was filed in November 2019 against the Company and other defendants by individuals alleging PFAS contamination and seeking 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.

Discovery has been reopened in a limited fashion due to Plaintiffs’ request to investigate whether recent increases in water utility rates by the City of Rome is attributable to PFAS.

This discovery is proceeding.

Discovery was reopened in a limited fashion due to plaintiffs’ request to investigate whether recent increases in water utility rates by the City of Rome was attributable to PFAS.

Defendants filed a consolidated motion for summary judgment in December 2025.

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, a private plaintiff filed a lawsuit against 3M and other defendants in Gordon County, Georgia alleging similar PFAS contamination on its property.

All of these cases remain pending and discovery is proceeding.

Some of these cases are tentatively set for trial in October and November of 2026.

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.

In February 2024, two landowners in Gordon County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging property contamination from wastewater treatment sludge containing PFAS from nearby carpet manufacturing operations.

One of the Company's co-defendants, the City of Calhoun, Georgia, filed a cross claim against the Company 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 who allege that their properties are contaminated with PFAS due to runoff from the properties of the Gordon County landowners from the initial lawsuit.

Motions to dismiss were denied, and discovery closed in December 2025.

In January 2026, a private plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Gordon County, Georgia alleging similar property contamination due to PFAS.

Fact discovery is complete, and the parties are currently engaged in expert discovery.

Tentative trial dates for three of the lawsuits are set between December 2026 and March 2027, and one is tentatively set for May 2027.

No schedule has been set for the lawsuit filed in January 2026.

In July 2024, the City of Lyerly, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants, alleging that discharges from local carpet mills contaminated the city's water supply.

The Company's motion to dismiss is still pending and the parties are currently engaging in fact discovery.

In November 2024, Mohawk Industries, a carpet manufacturer, filed a lawsuit in Whitfield County, Georgia against the Company and other defendants, including DuPont, and Daikin, alleging various counts of tort and contract liability, including

fraud, related to sales of certain PFAS.

Motions to dismiss the case were denied.

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 and common law for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Dalton Land Application System, which is a nearly 10,000 acre 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 complete, and a hearing date has been set for October 29, 2025.

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 and the court held a hearing on the motion on October 15, 2025.

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 July 2025, property owners in Gordon County and Murray County, Georgia, filed eight separate lawsuits against PFAS chemical manufacturers and carpet manufacturers alleging that the discharge of PFAS from various carpet manufacturer facilities contaminated their properties.

Motions to dismiss for these cases were filed on September 8, 2025.

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 has filed a motion to dismiss and briefing on the motion is underway.

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.

On September 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this case with the putative class of Rome and Floyd County ratepayer class action discussed above, which is pending before the same judge.

Trial is currently set for March 2027.

In December 2024, Dalton Utilities, located in Dalton, Georgia, filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants seeking clean-up costs under CERCLA and common law theories for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Dalton Land Application System, which is a nearly 10,000 acre field that has received carpet mill effluent pursuant to a Georgia Environmental Protection Division permit since the late 1980s.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied in March 2026.

Discovery in the case is proceeding.

In December 2024, Murray County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants seeking clean-up costs for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Murray County landfill and other locations throughout the County.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied.

Discovery in the case is proceeding.

In January 2025, Catoosa County, Georgia and Gordon County, Georgia filed lawsuits substantively identical to Murray County's against the Company and other defendants alleging similar PFAS impacts related to the Catoosa County and Gordon County landfills.

The Company filed motions to dismiss, which were denied.

Discovery in the cases is proceeding.

In October 2025, Walker County, Georgia filed a lawsuit substantively identical to those filed by Murray, Catoosa, and Gordon Counties alleging similar PFAS impacts related to the Walker County landfill.

The Company’s motion to dismiss is fully briefed and currently pending.

In June and July 2025, property owners in Gordon County and Murray County, Georgia, filed eight separate lawsuits against the Company and other defendants alleging that the discharge of PFAS from various carpet manufacturer facilities contaminated their properties.

Motions to dismiss these cases are fully briefed and currently pending.

In October 2025, property owners in Floyd County and Whitfield County, Georgia filed three separate lawsuits against the Company and other defendants that are substantively identical to those filed by property owners in Gordon County and Murray County.

Motions to dismiss these cases are fully briefed and remain pending.

In April 2025, the City of Chatsworth, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, alleging PFAS discharges have contaminated its water supply.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

In April 2025, a private landowner and an environmental organization (Coosa River Basin Initiative) filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants, 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, which was denied in March 2026.

In September 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this case with the putative class action of Rome and Floyd County water subscribers described above, which is pending before the same judge.

The motion remains pending.

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.

The case was voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in Gwinnett County, Georgia.

3M has not yet been served with the new complaint.

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 filed Motions to Dismiss on July 24, 2025 and briefing on the motions is underway.

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 filed Motions to Dismiss in all three cases and briefing is underway.

In September 2025, Dougherty County and Chattooga County Georgia filed a case against 3M in the Middle District of Georgia on behalf of a putative class of all governmental entities in Georgia who own or operate municipal landfills impacted by PFAS.

3M has not yet responded to the complaint.

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 and all such cases have been dismissed as to 3M.

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 removed the case to federal court in August 2025.

3M's motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL has been fully briefed.

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, which settlement was approved by the Court in September 2025.

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.

Trial is currently set for May 2026.

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 from contamination from PFAS compounds used and disposed of at a defunct textile plant in Society Hill, South Carolina.

The operative complaint seeks both property and punitive damages.

The case has been removed to federal court.

In August 2024, a companion personal injury case was filed in South Carolina state court.

3M removed this case to federal court.

Discovery is proceeding in the putative property damage class action.

Motions to Dismiss filed by 3M and other defendants are pending in the personal injury case.

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, which have now been fully briefed.

In May and June 2025, nine additional South Carolina 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 August 2025, 3M’s motion to transfer all nine cases to the MDL was granted.

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 at a local composting facility.

In April 2025, private landowners in Chattooga County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company 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.

In August 2025, the case was voluntarily dismissed.

In September 2025, it was re-filed in Gwinnett County, Georgia.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

No hearing date has been set.

In June 2025, private landowners in northwest Georgia filed three lawsuits against the Company and other defendants alleging PFAS from nearby carpet making facilities has contaminated soil, water, and indoor dust at their properties.

The Company filed motions to dismiss and briefing is underway.

In June 2025, Walker County, Georgia and the City of Chickamauga, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company 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.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and the court held a hearing but has not issued its ruling.

In September 2025, Dougherty County and Chattooga County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Middle District of Georgia on behalf of a putative class of all governmental entities in Georgia who own or operate municipal landfills impacted by PFAS.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

In December 2025 and early January 2026, property owners in Murray, Whitfield, Gordon, and Catoosa counties filed seven separate lawsuits against the Company and other defendants alleging that the discharge of PFAS from various carpet manufacturer facilities contaminated their properties.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and briefing is underway.

In January 2026, the Cities of Blakely, Cartersville, Meigs, and Pelham filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Middle District of Georgia on behalf of a putative class of all governmental entities in Georgia that own a wastewater treatment facility impacted by PFAS.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and briefing is underway.

In January 2026, private landowners in Gordon County, Georgia filed a lawsuit against the Company and several other defendants, including carpet manufacturers, alleging that PFAS contamination of soil, groundwater, private wells, and nearby

surface waters resulted from wastewater discharges and the land application of contaminated biosolids in the vicinity of their properties.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and briefing is underway.

In Illinois, three separate lawsuits were filed against the Company in state court by individual plaintiffs alleging personal injury and property damage relating to alleged PFAS contamination from the Cordova Facility.

The Company removed all three cases to federal court, where two were transferred to the AFFF MDL.

The remaining case, which includes several other defendants and non-PFAS claims, was remanded to state court in May 2025.

In October 2022, the Company and several other alleged chemical suppliers were added as defendants in a lawsuit in Maine federal district court previously filed by a group of landowners against several paper mills, alleging PFAS contamination from waste generated by the paper mills that was then incorporated into biosolids.

The case involves 98 plaintiffs asserting property damage claims against the owner of one paper mill and three alleged chemical suppliers, including the Company.

Discovery closed as to the six original plaintiffs in December 2025.

The parties agreed to conduct fact discovery on six additional plaintiffs.

Expert discovery for all twelve initial plaintiffs is expected to conclude in September 2026.

No trial date has been set.

Massachusetts

In August 2022, several landowners filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and several other defendants in Massachusetts state court alleging PFAS contamination from waste generated by local paper manufacturing facilities that was subsequently incorporated into biosolids at a local composting facility.

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.

This case was removed to federal court, where it was consolidated with a previously filed federal case involving similar allegations and claims against the Company's co-defendants.

In February and March 2024, the Company and the remaining defendants answered the complaint and filed cross claims against each other.

In April 2025, the class action was consolidated with another class action brought by the same plaintiffs against different defendants.

With the exception of certain limited discovery, 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.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ previous motion for class certification, without prejudice, to allow them to submit a motion and expert reports addressing the new defendants.

The plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification is due in June 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 filed a Motion to Dismiss in September 2025, which remains pending.

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.

The case is now proceeding in fact discovery, as to the six original plaintiffs, which is set to close in October 2025.

In October 2024, one of the former plaintiffs in the putative class action described above filed a separate lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Massachusetts state court alleging PFAS-related personal injury.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss that case in June 2025.

In March 2026, the court partially granted the Company’s motion, but allowed the plaintiff’s negligence and failure to warn claims to proceed.

The parties are negotiating a discovery schedule.

No trial date has been set.

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, which remains pending.

Trial is scheduled for November 1, 2027.

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.

In September 2025, 3M was named a defendant in a personal injury suit filed in Missouri state court alleging plaintiff’s injuries were caused by exposure to chemicals in firefighting protective gear.

3M removed the case to federal court in September 2025 and is seeking to have the case transferred to the AFFF MDL.

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.

3M filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in June 2025, and that motion is being briefed.

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.

In March 2025, another resident of Westminster, Massachusetts filed an additional lawsuit against the Company and other defendants in Massachusetts state court alleging PFAS-related personal injury.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in September 2025, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

The Company previously settled claims brought by Wolverine World Wide ("Wolverine") related to Wolverine’s alleged use of 3M Scotchgard in its shoe manufacturing operations.

The Company continues to incur liabilities for immaterial amounts pursuant to the settlement agreement.

In December 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and Wolverine in federal court in Michigan by the owners of two landfills alleging that the Company and Wolverine are both liable for the remediating PFAS contamination at and around the landfills under CERCLA and Michigan's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2026 and briefing is ongoing.

In May 2025, a putative nationwide class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, DuPont, and Chemours in federal court on behalf of all municipalities and governmental entities who purchased firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the protective equipment.

In February 2026, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and now only seeks to certify a Massachusetts-only purchaser class.

In January 2026, Corinth Gas & Water for the City of Corinth, Mississippi filed a lawsuit against the Company and other defendants alleging that discharge from operations at the Decatur Facility contaminated the Tennessee River, which feeds water into the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Corinth’s primary source of drinking water.

In March 2026, the Company removed the case to federal court, and is seeking to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL.

In April 2024, the Company was added as a defendant to a pending putative class action lawsuit alleging PFAS contamination of the class's properties and drinking water from metal plating operations in southeastern Missouri.

In October 2024, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in January 2026.

In September 2025, a personal injury lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in Missouri state court alleging injuries caused by exposure to PFAS in firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear.

The Company removed the case to federal court.

In September 2025 the Company moved to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL, which the JPML denied in December 2025.

In April 2026, the case was remanded to state court.

In April 2025, a putative nationwide class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, DuPont, and Chemours in Montana District Court on behalf of all entities who bought firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear, from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the turnout gear and claims under RICO and state conspiracy, product liability, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices laws.

In September 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the federal court in the District of Delaware.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in October 2025, which the court denied in January 2026.

In March 2026, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding alleged purchaser plaintiffs from Connecticut, California, Maryland, and Missouri.

The Company and several co-defendants are defending numerous lawsuits filed in New Jersey federal court by individuals with private drinking water wells near certain DuPont and Solvay facilities that were allegedly supplied with PFAS manufactured by the Company.

The Company settled for an immaterial amount with the plaintiffs in certain cases that sought property damages.

Applicable court approval was granted in May 2025, and those cases against the Company have been dismissed.

Plaintiffs in remaining individual lawsuits allege personal injuries to themselves or to their adult children.

Discovery is proceeding in the personal injury cases.

In May 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and several other defendants in New Jersey state court by individuals who resided near Solvay’s facility alleging personal injuries to themselves or to their children from PFAS exposure.

The Company removed the case to federal court in August 2025.

The Company's motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL was denied in December 2025.

In January 2026, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims against the Company without prejudice.

In November 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and Middlesex Water Company in New Jersey federal court by individuals who received drinking water from Middlesex Water Company 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 the water company's customers, 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 the Company.

The parties to the New Jersey federal and state court class actions agreed to settle these cases for an immaterial amount, which the state court approved in October 2025.

The New Jersey state and federal court class actions have each been dismissed.

In March 2023, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and Middlesex Water Company by another Middlesex Water Company customer alleging personal injury from drinking water allegedly contaminated with PFAS.

The trial date previously set for May 11, 2026 has been cancelled by the court.

In May 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Company, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Honeywell International Inc., and DuPont in New York by the owner of a tree nursery located in Hoosick Falls alleging property damage from PFOA contamination the plaintiff attributes to a nearby fabric coating facility.

The Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in October 2025, which remains pending.

In October 2018, a putative class action was filed against the Company and other defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the "S.D.

Ohio Court") 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.

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.

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 August 2025, 3M filed motions to transfer both cases to the AFFF MDL.

Plaintiffs’ motions to remand remain pending in both matters.

In September 2025, 3M removed three additional firefighter turnout gear cases to Virginia federal court and is seeking transfer of those cases to the AFFF MDL.

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.

In September 2025, the federal district court granted 3M's motion to dismiss all claims.

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.

3M's responsive pleading is due in October 2025.

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.

In March 2022, the S.D.

Ohio Court certified a class of "[i]ndividuals subject to the laws of Ohio, who have 0.05 [parts per trillion ("ppt")] of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum." In November 2023, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the "Sixth Circuit") issued an order vacating the class certification decision and remanding the case with instructions that the S.D.

Ohio Court dismiss the case and later denied a motion for rehearing en banc.

In March 2024, the S.D.

Ohio Court vacated the class certification order and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

In June 2024, a new putative nationwide class action was filed against the Company and other defendants by the same named plaintiff who filed the previously dismissed Ohio putative class action lawsuit.

The new suit was brought against only the Company 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 parts per billion ("ppb") or more of PFOS and PFOA (combined) manufactured by the defendants.

The Company 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, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

In March 2026, the court denied the Company's motion to

dismiss in part, held a part of the argument for a later decision, and certified a legal question to the Sixth Circuit regarding one of the Company's arguments for dismissal.

In March 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Company, DuPont, and the designers, manufacturers, and distributors of AstroTurf 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 September 2025, 3M removed the case to federal court.

In June, July, and August 2025, 3M and several other entities were named as defendants in cases filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas by firefighters alleging that their cancers were caused by exposure to PFAS from turnout gear.

In August 2025, plaintiffs in all three actions voluntarily dismissed their claims with the intention of refiling in the AFFF MDL.

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.

On September 23, 2025, the court denied Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware.

Motion to dismiss briefing had been stayed pending a ruling on the transfer motion and will now be resumed.

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.

3M's response to the amended complaint is due in October 2025.

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.

In September 2025, the Company removed the case to federal court.

In October 2025, plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court.

That motion was denied in February 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on April 2, 2026.

In March 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

South Carolina

In March 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in South Carolina state court alleging property damage from contamination from PFAS compounds used and disposed of at a defunct textile plant in Society Hill, South Carolina and seeking both property and punitive damages.

The case was removed to federal court.

In August 2024, a companion personal injury lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in South Carolina state court.

The Company removed this case to federal court.

Discovery is proceeding in the putative property damage class action.

In the personal injury case, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss, which are fully briefed and remain pending.

In August 2024, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in Virginia state court alleging that plaintiff’s decedent, a civilian firefighter, died from cancer allegedly caused by exposure to PFAS in firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear.

A co-defendant removed the case to federal court, and plaintiffs’ motion to remand has been fully briefed since December 2024.

In April 2025, the Company was named as a defendant in a similar lawsuit in Virginia state court, which was removed to federal court by another defendant.

In August 2025, the Company filed motions to transfer both cases to the AFFF MDL.

I n December 2025, the JPML declined to transfer these cases to the AFFF MDL.

In March 2026, one of the cases was remanded to state court.

The plaintiffs’ motion to remand the other case remains pending.

Between July 2024 and April 2025, three lawsuits were filed against the Company and other defendants in Virginia state court relating to firefighting personal protective equipment, including turnout gear.

In September 2025, the Company removed those three cases to Virginia federal court and moved to transfer them to the AFFF MDL.

In December 2025, the JPML declined to transfer one case to the AFFF MDL, and the Company withdrew its motions to transfer the other two cases.

The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to remand.

One case was remanded to state court in March 2026.

The plaintiffs' motions to remand the other two cases remain pending.

In August 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants 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.

The Company’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in June 2025.

The case is in class certification expert discovery, and the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due in July 2026.

The court set a trial date in June 2027.

In December 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal court by several private well owners near the Company's Wausau Greystone quarry alleging property damages and medical monitoring costs related to PFAS contamination.

The case also includes (non-class) personal injury and property damage claims on behalf of select plaintiffs.

In October 2025, the court set a July 24, 2026, deadline for the plaintiffs to move for class certification and set a trial date for November 2027.

In March 2026, the court partially granted the Company's motion to dismiss, narrowing certain claims in the case.

Discovery is ongoing.

Other PFAS-related Matters

Decatur, Alabama

Coordination with Government Authorities

The Company continues to engage with relevant federal and state agencies, including the EPA, the U.S.

Department of Justice ("DOJ"), state environmental agencies, and state attorneys general, in connection with information requests, inspections, and other agency actions.

The Company is in negotiations with the EPA, the DOJ, and state environmental agencies, including Alabama, Illinois, and Minnesota, regarding potential claims arising under different authorities, including the U.S.

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 ("TSCA"), the U.S.

Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (the "CWA"), the U.S.

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (the "SDWA"), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), related to the Company’s operations in those states.

The Company cannot predict the outcomes of these matters, the actions that may be taken by the regulatory agencies, or the potential consequences to the Company.

Alabama (Decatur)

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.

The Company previously operated under a 2009 consent order issued under the TSCA (the “2009 TSCA Consent Order”) covering manufacture and use of two PFAS (FBSA and FBSEE) at the Decatur Facility in Alabama, and that prohibits release of these materials into “the waters of the United States.” In March 2019, after learning that these materials may have been released into the Tennessee River from specified processes at the Decatur Facility, the Company halted the manufacture, processing, and use of these materials at the Decatur Facility and voluntarily disclosed the matter to the EPA and ADEM in April 2019.

During June and July 2019, the Company implemented controls intended to fully capture wastewater and treat air emissions from the specified processes.

The specified processes that were the subject of the Company's April 2019 disclosure 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.

Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama ("USAO-NDAL") seeking documents relating to, among other matters, compliance with the 2009 TSCA Consent Order and alleged unpermitted discharges into the Tennessee River from the Decatur Facility.

The Company continues to cooperate with the USAO-NDAL, the DOJ, 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 matter and certain discharges of PFAS from the Company's Cottage Grove, Minnesota facility (the "Cottage Grove Facility") and Cordova Facility, 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 and 3M are in discussions about 3M's application for a modified 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 and 3M are in discussions about 3M's application for a modified NPDES permit.

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 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 address 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.

The Decatur Facility discharges wastewater pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued by ADEM.

As previously reported, in June 2019 the Company voluntarily disclosed to the EPA and ADEM that certain monthly and quarterly reports contained incorrect values and submitted corrected information.

In September 2019, the Company also disclosed to the EPA and ADEM that it had discovered that the Decatur Facility's NPDES permit did not include all PFAS identified in its discharge, and temporarily idled certain manufacturing processes at the Decatur Facility.

The Company submitted an application to ADEM to modify the NPDES permit and implemented additional wastewater treatment controls, which are now operating as the Company continues optimization efforts.

ADEM and the Company are discussing the NPDES permit modification application.

In July 2020, the Company and ADEM entered into the ADEM ICO addressing PFAS-related wastewater discharges and air emissions from the Decatur Facility.

The ADEM ICO includes requirements relating to ongoing operations (including notices, reporting, analytical and characterization studies, capital improvements, and remediation activities, including on-site and off-site investigations and studies).

Compliance with the ADEM ICO or any further investigations may result in additional operating costs and capital expenditures over multiple years.

Illinois/Iowa (Cordova)

The Cordova Facility discharges wastewater pursuant to a NPDES permit issued by the IEPA.

As previously reported, in November 2019, the Company disclosed to the EPA, and in January 2020 disclosed to the IEPA, that the Cordova Facility's NPDES permit did not include all PFAS identified in its discharge.

As noted above, the Company continues to engage with the EPA and IEPA on potential civil claims related to these discharges.

The Company submitted an application to modify the NPDES permit and implemented additional wastewater treatment controls, which are now operating as the Company continues optimization efforts.

IEPA and the Company are discussing the NPDES permit modification.

In November 2022, the Company entered into an administrative consent order under the SDWA (the "SDWA ACO") requiring ongoing sampling and surveying of private and public drinking water wells near the Cordova Facility, treatment of private wells within a three-mile radius, and provision of alternate treatment or supply for the City of Camanche, Iowa's public drinking water system.

The Company continues to implement the SDWA ACO in coordination with the EPA and the City of Camanche, Iowa.

In January 2025, the Company entered into a consent order (the "RCRA CO") with the EPA under the RCRA requiring the Company to delineate PFAS in soil and groundwater at the Cordova Facility and a surrounding area that extends up to 1/2 mile from the Cordova Facility, including specified soil and groundwater sampling obligations at up to 80 locations in the area extending 5 miles from the Cordova Facility.

The Company continues implement the RCRA CO in coordination with the EPA.

Indiana (Hartford City)

In July 2025, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") issued notices of liability requiring the Company to investigate and remediate hazardous substances, including PFAS, at the Company’s Hartford City, Indiana facility and nearby off-site properties, along with related information requests.

The Company responded to the information requests in January 2026 and is engaging with IDEM regarding site investigation work plans.

Kentucky (Cynthiana)

In May 2025, the Company received a subpoena and a letter from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet ("KEEC") seeking information regarding PFAS and alleged hazardous substances used or released at the Company's Cynthiana, Kentucky facility and directing the Company to develop a site characterization plan to investigate suspected PFAS releases.

The Company is engaging with KEEC regarding these issues.

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.

The projects approved by MPCA drawing on the fund must be reasonable and necessary.

If the fund is depleted, additional funding could be sought from 3M.

MPCA and 3M disagree that certain projects MPCA has approved 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.

Fairmont, Minnesota

MPCA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) dated July 22, 2025, to the Company for alleged violations related to stormwater and fire water discharges containing PFAS constituents at the 3M Fairmont MN facility.

The major corrective actions required in the NOV include completion of a stormwater action plan to improve collection and treatment of stormwater and a soil and groundwater investigation at the site.

The Company has provided a response to the NOV contesting the validity of the alleged violations and a plan for addressing the requested corrective actions.

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.

As previously disclosed, in the first quarter of 2018, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $ 897 million (inclusive of legal fees and related obligations) in connection with a settlement with the State Minnesota relating to PFAS in certain natural resources in the state (the "MN NRD Settlement").

The MN NRD Settlement established a fund intended to enhance drinking water quality in the East Metropolitan Area of Minneapolis-St.

Paul, with projects subject to approval by MPCA and required to be reasonable and necessary.

If the fund is depleted, additional funding could be sought from the Company.

MPCA and the Company disagree regarding whether certain approved projects satisfy the MN NRD Settlement's conditions and how certain projected long-term operations and maintenance costs should treated in assessing whether the fund is depleted.

The Company initiated mediation under the MN NRD Settlement in February 2025, and that process remains ongoing.

Cottage Grove:

The Cottage Grove Facility discharges wastewater pursuant to a NPDES permit issued by the MPCA.

As previously reported, in early 2020, the Company disclosed to the EPA and MPCA that the Cottage Grove Facility's NPDES permit did not include all PFAS identified in its discharge.

As noted above, the Company continues to engage with the EPA and MPCA on potential civil claims related to these discharges.

The Company completed construction of a new wastewater treatment system to address PFAS.

The Company continues to work with the MPCA under the previously disclosed May 2007 Settlement Agreement and Consent Order ("SACO") addressing certain PFAS in soil and groundwater at former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury) and at the Cottage Grove Facility.

The SACO includes obligations relating to evaluating PFAS releases and response actions, including treatment or alternative drinking water where concentrations exceed applicable Minnesota Department of Health ("MDH") health-based values or health risk limits for certain PFAS, remediation of identified sources of other PFAS not controlled by actions addressing PFOA and PFOS, and information-sharing with the MPCA.

In January 2024, the MDH issued updated, more stringent, health-based values for PFOA and PFOS, and in October 2024, MDH proposed health risk limits for those PFAS.

The Company continues to evaluate potential impacts of these developments on its SACO obligations.

The Company also continues to implement the previously disclosed remedial decisions adopted by MPCA in 2008 (Woodbury and Oakdale) and 2009 (Cottage Grove Facility).

In January 2021, MPCA issued a notice of violation addressing the presence of PFAS in wastewater and requiring certain improvements related to the wastewater discharge system at the Cottage Grove Facility.

The Company continues to work with MPCA regarding the notice.

In June 2022, MPCA directed the Company to address PFAS in its stormwater discharges from the Cottage Grove Facility.

The Company coordinated with MPCA to develop a plan that is in a MPCA order issued in December 2022, which the Company is working to implement.

In May 2025, MPCA issued a final NPDES permit for the Cottage Grove Facility, effective June 1, 2025.

The permit includes ultra-low effluent limits for certain PFAS, including limits below current quantification levels for some compounds, and also includes lower, but measurable limits for demonstrating permit compliance.

In June 2025, the Company appealed elements of the NPDES permit not related to the discharge limits for PFAS, and a hearing on the appeal was held in March 2026.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of the appeal, and depending on its outcome or future potential permit modifications, additional capital or operational expenditures may be required to meet permit requirements.

If the Cottage Grove Facility is unable to meet applicable discharge limits, it could have a significant adverse impact on the Company'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 in similar quantities or at all from the Company's other facilities, which could in turn impact the Company's ability to fulfill supply obligations to its customers.

In July 2025, MPCA issued a notice of violation alleging stormwater and fire-water discharges containing PFAS at the Company's Fairmont, Minnesota facility and requiring corrective actions, including a stormwater action plan and a soil and groundwater investigation.

The Company responded contesting the alleged violations and provided a plan to address the requested corrective actions.

The Company continues to engage with the MPCA regarding the alleged violations.

In March 2023, MPCA issued a notice of violation alleging stormwater discharges containing PFAS at the Company's Hutchinson, Minnesota facility.

The Company continues to engage with MPCA regarding the alleged violations.

Wisconsin (Wausau)

In August 2024, the Company received an EPA request for information under CERCLA seeking information and documents regarding PFAS use and disposal at the Company's Greystone facility (the "Greystone Facility") and its downtown facility in

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 and in October 2025 EPA informed 3M it has not identified any immediate need for 3M to take additional action with respect to EPA's 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.

The WDNR has approved the work plan and soil and groundwater sampling is in process.

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.

Hartford City, Indiana

In July 2025, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) issued notices of liability requiring 3M to investigate and remediate hazardous substances, including PFAS, at 3M’s Hartford City facility and nearby off-site properties.

IDEM also issued related information requests.

3M is engaged in discussions with IDEM about the notices and information requests.

The Company provided responsive information and, in October 2025, the EPA informed the Company it had not identified an immediate need for additional action.

In March 2025, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ("WDNR") notified the Company that it determined there had been a release of hazardous substances from the Greystone Facility based on PFAS detected in groundwater and ordered the Company to submit a site investigation work plan.

The Company submitted an initial work plan in June 2025, which WDNR has approved.

The Company reported initial sampling results to WDNR in January 2026, and is continuing to engage with WDNR on this matter.

PFAS Litigation, Investigations, and Other Activities Outside the United States

In May 2025, the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice requiring 3M Australia to investigate and clean up PFAS contamination at a site formerly leased by 3M Australia.

3M is working with the regulator regarding the notice.

The Company is aware of a writ of summons filed against the Company and its subsidiary, 3M Australia Pty Ltd, in the Supreme Court of Victoria in November 2024 on behalf of individuals with connections to property allegedly impacted by Company products containing PFAS.

The Company has not been served with the writ, but the service period has been extended to June 8, 2026.

Since December 2023, numerous PFAS-related actions have been filed against the Company, 3M Canada Company - Compagnie 3M Canada ("3M Canada"), and other defendants in Canada.

As of March 31, 2026, a total of sixteen PFAS-related actions were pending in Canadian courts in British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Ontario, and Quebec.

These matters include class and non-class claims by individuals, municipalities, federal, provincial, and territorial governments, Indian Bands, and other entities for alleged impacts from AFFF and other PFAS-containing products, including property, drinking water, and other natural resources contamination, personal injury, and other damages.

These actions remain in early stages.

PFAS manufacturing in Zwijndrecht, Antwerp, Belgium:

3M Belgium, a subsidiary of the Company, owns and operates a facility in Zwijndrecht, Antwerp, Belgium (the "Zwijndrecht Facility") where PFAS manufacturing ceased in 2024 as part of the Company’s global exit from PFAS manufacturing.

3M Belgium continues to engage with the Public Flemish Waste Agency ("OVAM") and other authorities to investigate and remediate PFAS impacts associated with the historical operations at the Zwijndrecht Facility, including with respect to soil, groundwater, wastewater treatment, and a nearby ring road construction project in Antwerp (the "Oosterweel Project").

Over the years, regulatory proceedings have included permit reviews, appeals, parliamentary investigations, and ongoing remediation oversight.

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 judicially appealed by a Belgian non-profit organization.

3M Belgium cannot predict the outcome of such judicial appeal and is therefore unable to assess whether the current Zwijndrecht Facility wastewater treatment system, or currently conceived additional treatment technology, will be able to meet the ultimately determined permit limits with respect to ongoing non-PFAS 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 available in similar quantities from the Company's other facilities, which could in turn impact these businesses' ability to fulfill supply obligations to their customers.

Soil remediation and environmental law compliance in Belgium:

Flemish government actions and the 2022 Flemish Remediation Agreement:

In July 2022, 3M Belgium entered into a remediation agreement with the Flemish government (the “Flemish Remediation Agreement”) under which 3M Belgium committed € 571 million to address issues associated with PFAS relating to the Zwijndrecht Facility, 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 investigations, amounts to address certain identified priority remedial actions (which may include supporting additional actions as required under the Decree on Soil Remediation and Soil Protection (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 Flemish Remediation Agreement contains certain provisions ending litigation and providing certain releases of liability for 3M Belgium,

while preserving the Flemish government's regulatory authority.

The Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $ 500 million in connection with the Flemish Remediation Agreement in the first half of 2022.

Recently, the Flemish government requested a series of technical meetings with 3M Belgium regarding the scope and implementation of 3M Belgium’s commitments under the Flemish Remediation Agreement.

3M Belgium is continuing regular interactions with the government on these topics.

Soil/groundwater remediation:

Consistent with Flemish environmental law, 3M Belgium has submitted to OVAM required descriptive soil investigations (“DSIs”), conducted by an accredited third-party soil remediation expert, to assess areas of potential PFAS contamination that may require remediation.

In the fourth quarter of 2025, OVAM required 3M Belgium to submit an additional DSI relating to ultra-short chain PFAS by June 2026.

The accredited third-party soil remediation expert has prepared multiple remedial action plans ("RAPs") that have been approved by OVAM and implementation activities are underway.

3M Belgium also submitted additional required RAPs, which OVAM deemed to be not in conformity with the Flemish Soil Decree.

OVAM provided extensions of time for 3M Belgium to revise and re-submit each RAP OVAM found to be non-conforming.

3M Belgium representatives continue to engage with the Flemish authorities regarding further soil remediation and related groundwater actions in connection with the Flemish Soil Decree.

Changes to Flemish Soil Decree:

Certain regulatory decisions and executive actions relating to remediation standards under the Flemish Soil Decree have been challenged, annulled, withdrawn, or repealed and remain subject to judicial or administrative review.

In January 2026, 3M learned that one or more non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") appealed the Flemish government's withdrawal of a temporary action framework setting soil and groundwater values for evaluating PFAS remediation.

In May 2024, the Flemish government adopted legislation expanding OVAM's authority to require financial assurances and allocate remediation costs to various parties, which could result in additional, unknown financial obligations for 3M Belgium depending on future regulatory determinations.

To date, no such financial assurances or allocation of remediation costs have been sought or imposed on 3M Belgium.

Other litigation:

As of March 31, 2026, eighteen actions against 3M Belgium were pending in Belgian civil courts, and 3M Belgium has also received pre-litigation notices from others in Belgium indicating potential claims.

These matters include claims by individuals, municipalities, and other entities for alleged PFAS impacts, including soil, wastewater, and rainwater contamination, nuisance, tort liability, personal injury, and requests for injunctive relief.

While most of the actions are in early stages, one matter resulted in provisional damages awards of € 500 to each of four family members living near the Zwijndrecht Facility.

Approximately 1,400 individuals have petitioned to intervene in a "follow-on action" primarily alleging nuisance claims.

The Belgian court has not yet determined whether to permit the intervention.

After a February 2026 hearing, the court ordered additional briefing for an additional hearing scheduled to be held in November 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.

The lawsuit, which is separate from the follow-on action described in the preceding paragraph, alleges defective products and unlawful acts, including by 3M entities as directors 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 resolved certain claims in November 2025, while the remaining claims are proceeding, with all pre-hearing submissions scheduled to be completed by November 2026.

Other investigations:

As previously disclosed, the Company is aware of criminal complaints filed against 3M Belgium with an Antwerp investigatory judge alleging, among other things, violations of environmental care obligations relating to unlawful waste abandonment.

Additional parties reportedly joined the complaints.

3M Belgium has not been served with any of the complaints and has been cooperating with the investigation.

Government interactions related to PFAS manufacturing in Gendorf, Germany:

Dyneon GmbH ("Dyneon"), a limited liability company wholly owned by the Company's German subsidiary, 3M Deutschland GmbH, and prior operators of the Gendorf, Germany facility (the "Gendorf Facility") commissioned a voluntary feasibility study by an independent soil consultant evaluating the potential feasibility, environmental impact, approaches, and related costs for remediating PFOA in soil and groundwater around the Gendorf Facility.

The study was shared with the competent German authority, which provided feedback and requested additional investigations and measures.

Dyneon has agreed to sponsor environmental studies related to potential soil disposal solutions.

A local authority indicated that Dyneon should contribute to those soil disposal solutions.

In July and August 2025, authorities issued orders requiring Dyneon to plan a hydraulic barrier to capture a PFOA plume in groundwater originating from the Gendorf Facility and assess remediation measures in and around the site.

In August and September 2025, Dyneon appealed these orders and enforceability is suspended by this appeal.

Dyneon continues discussions with authorities regarding potential future remedial actions related to the Gendorf Facility.

In July 2025, Dyneon received pre-litigation notices from two German cities and a private citizen seeking payment for alleged costs associated with PFAS-impacted soil encountered during construction works.

The Netherlands

In May 2023, the government of the Netherlands sent 3M Belgium a notice of liability stating that it believes 3M Belgium to be 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, the Dutch Fishermen's Association, on behalf of an individual fisherman, filed a lawsuit in a Dutch court naming 3M Belgium and the Company as defendants, alleging that PFAS from 3M Belgium’s Zwijndrecht Facility impacted certain aspects of the Dutch fishing industry, and seeking damages from alleged PFAS contamination.

A hearing for that matter is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2026.

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.

In July 2018, the Company, along with more than 120 other companies, was served with a complaint filed by Occidental Chemical Corporation ("Occidental") seeking cost recovery and contribution relating to remediation of approximately eight miles of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey.

Occidental alleges that it agreed to design and fund an estimated $ 165 million sediment removal and capping remedy addressing eight chemicals of concern, including PCBs and dioxins, and seeks to allocate those costs among the defendants, including the Company.

The Company’s alleged connection to the site relates to its historical use of two commercial drum conditioning facilities in New Jersey.

The Company's potential contribution, if any, has not been determined.

In January 2025, the EPA issued a notice of violation that was received by the Cottage Grove Facility in February 2025.

The notice is based on a 2021 EPA RCRA inspection and asserted observations relating to hazardous waste management practices for certain containers and tanks and related recordkeeping.

Certain items were corrected during the inspection, and the Company responded to the notice in March 2025.

In July 2024, the Company received a violation notice from the IEPA alleging regulatory violations relating 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.

In January 2026, the Company received a violation notice from IEPA alleging regulatory violations tied to emissions of volatile organic material at the Cordova Facility.

The Company responded to the notice and is cooperating with IEPA.

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 nine 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 $ 0.7 billion and made related payments of $ 1.8 billion.

As of September 30, 2025, the Company had recorded liabilities of $ 7.5 billion for “other environmental liabilities.” These amounts are reflected in the consolidated balance sheet within other current liabilities ($ 0.7 billion) and other liabilities ($ 6.8 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 September 30, 2025, the Company had recorded liabilities of $ 39 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

The Company periodically evaluates contingent liabilities associated with the environmental matters and litigation described above to determine whether losses are probable and reasonably estimable based on historical experience, ongoing developments, and discussions regarding potential resolutions.

For the matters described under "Environmental Matters", unless otherwise described below, no liability has been recorded because the Company believes a loss is not both probable and reasonably estimable and the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss at this time.

During the first quarter of 2026, the Company increased its accrual for PFAS-related environmental matters and made related payments, primarily due to interest accretion associated with the PWS Settlement.

As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company had recorded “other environmental liabilities” of $ 7.8 billion ($ 0.8 billion within other current liabilities and $ 7.0 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet) and $ 7.7 billion ($ 0.7 billion within other current liabilities and $ 7.0 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet), respectively.

These accruals represent the Company’s estimate of probable losses associated with the PFAS-related environmental matters described above.

The Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the amounts accrued at this time.

As of March 31, 2026, the Company recorded $ 39 million of liabilities for estimated costs for non-PFAS environmental matters related to the investigation, treatment, or removal of hazardous substances at current or former Company manufacturing sites and certain third-party sites.

The Company evaluates each site quarterly and records remediation liabilities on an undiscounted basis when costs are probable and reasonably estimable, generally no later than completion of feasibility studies or commitment to a remediation plan.

Estimates are based primarily on internal and third-party environmental studies, the extent and nature of contamination, expected remedial approaches, and participation and financial viability of other potentially responsible parties.

The Company adjusts recorded liabilities as additional information becomes available or circumstances change.

The Company expects to pay the amounts recorded over remediation periods that currently extend up to approximately 20 years.

Estimating environmental compliance and remediation costs involve significant uncertainties, including evolving scientific and regulatory standards, changes in environmental laws, permissible contaminant levels, or enforcement policies, development of new analytical or remediation technologies;

allocation of liability among responsible parties, and the financial condition of co-responsible parties and indemnitors.

For sites where remediation activities are substantially complete and remaining obligations primarily relate to operation, maintenance, or monitoring, the Company believes the risk of loss in excess of recorded amounts would not be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

For sites where remediation activities remain ongoing, the Company cannot estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of recorded accruals due to the uncertainties described above.

Non-Environmental Product Matters

Impact of Certain Prior Transactions

On April 1, 2008, the Company acquired Aearo Technologies (“Aearo”) in a stock purchase transaction.

Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protective equipment such as eye, ear, head, face, fall, and certain respiratory protection products.

The Company is subject to legal proceedings relating to both Aearo’s pre-acquisition and post-acquisition operations.

Two significant categories of legal proceedings involving the Company and Aearo relate to:

Aearo’s respirator business and Aearo’s Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 Earplugs products.

These legal proceedings, including agreements among the Company, Aearo, and other parties that affect the allocation of potential liability, are described below.

Non-Aearo Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation

Background of Non-Aearo Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation

As of March 31, 2026, the Company is a named defendant, together with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits pending in various courts that collectively involve approximately 3,900 individual claimants, compared to approximately 3,700 individual claimants with actions pending as of December 31, 2025.

The vast majority of resolved or pending lawsuits and claims allege use of the Company’s mask or respirator products and seek damages for alleged personal injury arising from occupational exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally present in the workplace.

A minority of the resolved or pending lawsuits and claims 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, in some cases, exposure at Company premises.

The Company’s current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than at the peak of filings in 2003.

Claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are expected to represent a greater proportion of total claims than in prior periods.

Over more than two decades, the Company has prevailed in nineteen of the twenty cases tried to a jury.

Based on prior trial outcomes, the Company believes that its respiratory protection products perform effectively when used as intended and that claimants have been unable to establish a causal connection between their alleged medical conditions, even if significant, and the Company’s respiratory protection products.

Nonetheless, the Company’s litigation experience indicates that claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are costlier to litigate and resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons.

As a result, the Company expects the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis to remain higher than it experienced in prior periods dominated by medically unimpaired claimants.

In 2003, West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint, amended in 2005, against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia.

The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified compensatory damages, primarily for reimbursement of workers' compensation and healthcare costs allegedly incurred for all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis, as well as unspecified punitive damages.

In October 2019, the court severed the State’s unfair trade practices claim, which seeks civil penalties of up to $ 5,000 per violation under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA") based on allegations that certain statements regarding the Company's 8710 respirators, last sold in the United States in 1998, were misleading.

An initial bench trial commenced in January 2025 and remains ongoing with periodic trial days.

Issues presented include the statute of limitations, the applicable penalty period under the WVCCPA, and whether the 8710 respirators performed as advertised.

The amount, if any, of civil penalties would be determined in subsequent proceedings.

An expert witness retained by the State has estimated that the Company sold over five million respirators in West Virginia during the relevant period, and the State has alleged that each respirator sold constitutes a separate violation under the WVCCPA.

The Company disputes these estimates and the State's interpretation of what constitutes a separate violation under the WVCCPA.

The Company has asserted multiple defenses, including that its marketing did not violate the WVCCPA, and that the claims are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations.

No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time, and is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss due to unresolved factual and legal issues.

On December 22, 2025, West Virginia filed an additional complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia alleging violations of the WVCCPA related to the Company's 8210 respirators.

The Company removed the case to federal court on December 23, 2025.

West Virginia moved to remand the case to state court.

In February 2026, the Company opposed West Virginia’s motion to remand and simultaneously moved to dismiss the complaint.

In April 2026, the court denied West Virginia's motion to remand and granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

Non-Aearo Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities

The Company regularly evaluates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities based on a comprehensive review of current and historical claims data, including the number and nature of pending claims, the mix of alleged exposure substances between asbestos, silica, coal, or other occupational dusts, the mix of claims alleging exposures relating to use of the Company’s mask or respirator products versus claims relating to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company, defense and resolution costs, and trends in claim filings and costs.

The Company also engages a third party with expertise in analyzing such data to assist in estimating the costs to defend and resolve pending and future claims.

Based on this analysis, the Company records accruals reflecting its estimate of probable losses.

Developments that could affect these estimates include, changes in claim volume or mix, defense and resolution costs, trial and appellate outcomes, applicable law and procedure, and financial condition of co-defendants and insurers.

As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company's accruals for non-Aearo respirator mask/asbestos liabilities and defense costs were $ 460 million and $ 473 million, respectively.

These accruals represent the Company’s estimate of probable loss and an estimation period for future claims extending through approximately 2050.

The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range by which actual liabilities may exceed recorded accruals due to inherent uncertainty in projecting future claims, the application of joint and several liability principles, and the potential impact of future developments.

Aearo Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation

Background of Aearo Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation

Aearo manufactured and sold certain respiratory protection products prior to its acquisition by the Company.

Aearo, together with certain prior owners of its respirator business and, in some cases, the Company is named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits in various courts alleging personal injury from occupational exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust, or other occupational dusts, generally involving workplace conditions or products manufactured by other defendants.

Aearo Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities

As of March 31, 2026, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, recorded accruals of $ 58 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos, silica-related, and coal mine dust claims.

Responsibility for defense costs, settlements, and judgments is shared among Aearo and other parties and their insurers pursuant to an informal arrangement based on the number of years each company sold applicable respiratory products and the years of exposure alleged by the plaintiff.

Aearo’s potential liability is further limited by a 1995 agreement with Cabot Corporation ("Cabot"), under which Cabot retains responsibility for certain claims involving respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995, subject to Aearo paying a quarterly $ 100,000 fee and Cabot being able to meet its obligations in these matters.

Under this arrangement, Aearo's exposure is generally limited to claims alleging exposures on or after January 1, 1997.

To date, Aearo has elected to continue participating in this arrangement.

Future developments, including changes in claim volume, costs, legal outcomes, allocation among co-defendants, or the financial viability of payor parties and insurers, could materially affect Aearo's liabilities and cause the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims to be significantly larger than the amount accrued.

Due to these uncertainties, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo’s liabilities may exceed recorded accruals.

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.

On September 19, 2025, the court overseeing the CAE Multidistrict Litigation issued an order announcing that all cases in the MDL had been resolved through dismissals or through the Settlement Agreement, and that no cases remain pending in the MDL.

However, existing or new litigation may continue or be filed in the United States or internationally relating to the products that are the subject of the settlement.

For example, the Company is aware of a writ of summons filed in Australia and has received a Letter Before Action in the United Kingdom, both on behalf of purported users of the Company's earplug products.

During the first nine months of 2025, the Company increased its existing accrual for CAE by approximately $ 0.2 billion primarily for interest accretion on the CAE Settlement and made related payments of approximately $ 1.4 billion.

As of September 30, 2025, the Company had an accrued liability of $ 2.5 billion related to CAE.

This amount is reflected within contingent liability claims and other ($ 1.3 billion within other current liabilities and $ 1.2 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.

Background of Combat Arms Earplugs Litigation

Aearo manufactured and sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 Earplugs (the "CAE") beginning in approximately 1999.

Following the Company's acquisition of Aearo in 2008, the Company sold CAE until they were discontinued in 2015.

The Company and Aearo believe the CAE were effective and safe when used properly, but faced litigation from a significant number of claimants in a consolidated multidistrict litigation ("CAE MDL") in U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of Florida ("CAE MDL Court") and a coordinated state court proceeding in the 4th Judicial District, County of Hennepin, Minnesota.

In August 2023, the Company, Aearo, and related entities entered into a settlement arrangement (as amended, the “CAE Settlement”), intended to resolve substantially all existing and potential claims related to the CAE in the CAE MDL and coordinated Minnesota state court proceeding.

The CAE Settlement was structured to promote broad claimant participation and does not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

Under the CAE Settlement, the Company agreed to contribute up to $ 6.0 billion between 2023 and 2029, subject to claimant participation thresholds being met and the Company receiving a full release of claims involving the CAE.

In March 2024, the Company announced that, claimant participation rates exceeded 99 %, which exceeded the required 98 % participation threshold.

As a result, the Company commenced payments pursuant to the payment schedule in the CAE Settlement.

In September 2025, the CAE MDL Court confirmed that all cases in the CAE MDL had been resolved as of that time.

Other litigation may continue or be filed inside or outside the CAE MDL, including in international jurisdictions.

For example, the Company is aware of a writ of summons filed in Australia and has received a Letter Before Action in the United Kingdom, both on behalf of purported users of the CAE.

Combat Arms Earplugs Liabilities

As a result of the CAE Settlement, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $ 4.2 billion in the third quarter of 2023, reflecting the discounted present value of the Company's $ 5.3 billion pre-tax contributions to the CAE Settlement (discounted at an estimated 5.6 % interest rate at the settlement time), net of the Company's then-existing accrual of $ 1.1 billion related to this matter.

During the first quarter of 2026, the Company increased its existing accrual for CAE primarily for interest accretion on the CAE Settlement which was offset by related payments.

As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, and the Company had accrued liabilities related to the CAE litigation of $ 2.2 billion ($ 1.3 billion within other current liabilities and $ 0.9 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet) and $ 2.4 billion ($ 1.4 billion within other current liabilities and $ 1.0 billion within other liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet), respectively.

These accruals represent the Company’s estimate of probable losses associated with the CAE litigation.

The Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the amounts accrued at this time.

Watson Grinding

In March 2026, judgment was entered in Texas state court on a verdict from a November 2025 trial, where a jury determined the Company was partially liable in connection with claims related to gas detection services provided by a former subsidiary, Detcon, Inc., which the Company sold in August 2019.

The March 2026 judgment is part of proceedings in Houston, Texas captioned In Re January 24th Explosion Litigation , Master Docket No.

2021-15294, relating to a January 2020 explosion at a Watson Grinding facility in Houston.

Over 1,900 claimants allege claims against multiple defendants.

Jury trials took place in June 2025 and November 2025, and additional trials are scheduled in 2026.

In the June 2025 trial, a jury determined the Company was partially liable.

The Company appealed the judgment entered following that trial, and that appeal remains pending.

If post-trial briefing of the March 2026 judgment is unsuccessful, the Company intends to appeal that judgment.

No liability has been recorded for these judgments because the Company believes a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time, and is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss due to unresolved factual and legal issues.

Other Matters

In May 2023, an incident at the Company's Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin facility resulted in an employee fatality.

Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) initiated an investigation and, as reflected in a DOL press release dated November 7, 2023, issued two citations to the Company alleging willful safety violations.

In September 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA and the DOL relating to the incident that included an immaterial payment amount and did not include a finding of willful safety violations.

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 relating to, among other matters, the Prairie du Chien facility, the incident, workplace injuries at Prairie du Chien and certain other Company facilities, and OSHA inspections at other Company facilities.

The Company has substantially complied with the subpoena and will continue to cooperate with the investigation.

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.

The Company is pursuing insurance recoveries to offset a portion of its liabilities, including those described above.

For respirator mask/asbestos, CAE, and PFAS-related litigation and liabilities, recovery efforts are ongoing through litigation in U.S.

courts, arbitration proceedings, mediations, and negotiations with insurers.

During the third quarter of 2025, the Company recorded $ 182 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 nine months of 2025 was $ 267 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.

Stock-Based Compensation

The Company’s annual stock option, restricted stock unit, and performance share grant is typically made in the first quarter to provide a strong and immediate link between the performance of individuals during the preceding year and the size of their annual stock compensation grants.

The grant to eligible employees uses the closing stock price on the grant date.

Accounting rules require recognition of expense under a non-substantive vesting period approach, requiring compensation expense recognition when an employee is eligible to retire.

Employees are considered eligible to retire at age 55 and after having completed ten years of service.

This retiree-eligible population represents 31 percent of the annual grant stock option and restricted unit compensation expense;

therefore, higher stock-based compensation expense is typically recognized in the first quarter.

However, due to the spin-off of Solventum (see Note 2), the 2024 annual grant was made in May, after the April 1, 2024 separation.

In addition to the annual grants, the Company makes other minor grants of stock options, restricted stock units and other stock-based grants.

The Company issues cash settled restricted stock units and stock appreciation rights in certain countries.

The cash settled grants do not result in the issuance of common stock and are considered immaterial by the Company, and not included in the tables below.

In connection with the Solventum separation on April 1, 2024 (see Note 2), all outstanding stock-based compensation awards associated with Solventum employees converted into Solventum awards, became Solventum’s responsibility and were cancelled from 3M plans.

In addition, for awards associated with remaining 3M employees, the number of shares underlying unvested stock awards was adjusted along with the exercise price and the number of shares underlying outstanding stock options.

The adjustments to shares underlying unvested stock awards and outstanding stock options did not result in a material stock-based compensation cost.

Stock-Based Compensation Expense:

Amounts recognized in the financial statements with respect to stock-based compensation programs, which include stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance shares and the General Employees’ Stock Purchase Plan (GESPP), are provided in the following table.

Capitalized stock-based compensation amounts were not material.

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

(Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024

Cost of sales $ 7 $ 8 $ 26 $ 32

Selling, general and administrative expenses 39 26 127 151

Research, development and related expenses 7 7 29 38

Stock-based compensation expenses 53 41 182 221

Income tax benefits ( 10 ) ( 5 ) ( 19 ) ( 19 )

Stock-based compensation expenses (benefits), net of tax $ 43 $ 36 $ 163 $ 202

During the three months ended March 31, 2026, the Company recorded insurance recovery benefits of $ 277 million related to respirator mask/asbestos, CAE, and PFAS-related matters.

Under the CAE Settlement, insurance recoveries under relevant policies are contributed to the qualified settlement fund as part of the settlement consideration.

The timing and amount of insurance recoveries, remain uncertain and may be affected by factors including delays in or disputes regarding insurer payments;

potential insurer insolvency, the outcome of negotiations or coverage litigation;

and insurers’ asserted coverage defenses or exclusions.

The Company does not expect its aggregate liabilities to be fully covered by applicable insurance and, to the extent coverage is available, liabilities are expected to exceed the applicable insurance policy limits.

Business Segments

3M’s businesses are organized, managed and internally grouped into segments based on differences in markets, products, technologies and services.

3M manages its continuing operations in three business segments:

3M’s businesses are organized and managed in three business segments:

Safety and Industrial;

Transportation and Electronics;

and Consumer.

3M’s three business segments bring together common or related 3M technologies, enhancing the development of innovative products and services and providing for efficient sharing of business resources.

On April 1, 2024, 3M completed the previously announced separation of its Health Care business as a separate public company, Solventum (see Note 2 for additional information).

3M is an integrated enterprise characterized by substantial intersegment cooperation, cost allocations and inventory transfers.

Therefore, management does not represent that these segments, if operated independently, would report the operating income information shown.

3M discloses business segment operating income as its measure of segment profit, reconciled to both total 3M operating income and income before taxes.

Business segment operating income excludes certain expenses and income that are not allocated to business segments (as described below in “Corporate and Other”).

Business segment disclosures consider information used by/provided to 3M's chief operating decision maker (CODM).

For 3M, the CODM is the chief executive officer.

The CODM uses business segment operating income to allocate resources to segments in the planning and forecasting process along with periodic ongoing reviews of results and overall market activity.

and Consumer — based on differences in markets, products, technologies and services.

These segments bring together related 3M technologies, enhance innovation and provide efficient resource sharing.

As an integrated enterprise, 3M has substantial intersegment cooperation, cost allocations and inventory transfers.

Accordingly, management does not represent that these segments, if operated independently, would report the operating income information shown.

3M discloses business segment operating income as its measure of segment profit, which is reconciled to both total 3M operating income and income before taxes.

This measure excludes certain expenses and income not allocated to business segments (as described below in “Corporate”).

Business segment disclosures consider information used by/provided to 3M's CODM, who is the chief executive officer.

The CODM uses business segment operating income to allocate resources in the planning and forecasting process and in reviews of results and overall market activity.

Effective in the first quarter of 2026, the measure of segment operating performance and segment composition used by the CODM changed.

As a result, 3M’s disclosed measure of segment profit and other segment-related amounts were updated to align with these changes.

The financial information presented herein reflects the impact of these changes for all periods presented.

These include:

• Reflecting manufactured PFAS products activity and net costs for respirator mask/asbestos litigation special items within Corporate:

Previously, these special items were included in the Transportation and Electronics segment and Safety and Industrial segment, respectively.

Elements related to manufactured PFAS products activity are now included in Corporate, with sales and income (loss) reflected as a special item.

Net costs related to respirator mask/asbestos are now also reflected in Corporate, within the net costs for significant litigation Corporate special item.

Business Segment Information

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

Three months ended March 31,

Net sales (millions) 2026 2025

3 unchanged sentences

Total reportable business segment net sales 5,909 5,685

Corporate and Other 97 89 279 219

Total Company

$ 6,030 $ 5,954

Significant segment expenses and operating performance (millions)

14 unchanged sentences

Total reportable business segment operating income 1,392 1,308

Corporate and Other

Corporate-level (expense) income 34 50

Corporate special items:

Net costs for significant litigation 78 ( 25 ) ( 323 ) ( 96 )

Divestiture costs — — — ( 20 )

Loss on business divestitures ( 161 ) — ( 164 ) —

Net (costs) benefit from significant litigation

(Loss) gain on business divestitures

Manufactured PFAS products ( 126 ) ( 38 )

Transformation costs ( 66 ) —

Total corporate special items ( 97 ) ( 25 ) ( 501 ) ( 116 )

Other corporate (expense) income - net 17 ( 8 ) 89 ( 109 )

Total Corporate and Other ( 80 ) ( 33 ) ( 412 ) ( 225 )

Total Corporate

Total Company operating income

Other expense/(income), net 519 ( 139 )

Income from continuing operations before income taxes $ 1,147 $ 1,721 $ 3,455 $ 4,060

Depreciation and amortization

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

(Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024

Income before income taxes

$ 878 $ 1,385

Three months ended March 31,

Depreciation and amortization (millions)

Safety and Industrial $ 144 $ 139

1 unchanged sentence

Consumer 40 39

Corporate and Other 2 12 8 35

Total continuing operations $ 298 $ 310 $ 878 $ 902

Capital expenditures

Three months ended September 30, Nine months ended September 30,

(Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024

Capital expenditures (millions)

Safety and Industrial $ 85 $ 78

1 unchanged sentence

Consumer 11 11

Corporate and Other 52 34 161 125

Total continuing operations $ 218 $ 246 $ 662 $ 813

(Millions) September 30, 2025 December 31, 2024

Assets (millions)

March 31, 2026 December 31, 2025

Business segment assets:

6 unchanged sentences

Total assets $ 35,436 $ 37,733

Beginning in the first quarter of 2025, "business segment assets" represent inventories, based on the extent of business segment information regularly provided to 3M's CODM.

This impact is reflected in the table above for all periods presented.

"Business segment assets" represent inventories, based on the extent of business segment information regularly provided to 3M's CODM.

Business segment depreciation reflected above is based on the underlying usage of assets and allocated depreciation.

Corporate and Other:

Outside of 3M's reportable operating segments, 3M has Corporate and Other which is not a reportable business segment as it does not meet the segment reporting criteria.

Because Corporate and Other includes a variety of miscellaneous items, it is subject to fluctuation on a quarterly and annual basis.

Corporate and Other operating income (loss) includes:

Outside of 3M's reportable segments, 3M has Corporate which is not a reportable business segment as it does not meet the segment reporting criteria.

Because Corporate includes a variety of miscellaneous items, it is subject to fluctuation on a quarterly and annual basis.

Corporate operating income (loss) includes:

• Corporate-level (expense) income includes:

◦ certain enterprise and governance activities resulting in unallocated corporate costs and other activity or costs that 3M may choose not to allocate directly to its business segments,

◦ commercial activity with Solventum following its April 2024 spin-off from 3M, as well as certain operations of 3M’s former health care business segment that were retained by 3M, and

◦ transition arrangement agreements (e.g., fees charged by 3M, net of underlying costs) related to divested businesses, including those related to Solventum.

• Corporate special items include, for the periods presented:

◦ net costs for significant litigation impacting operating income (loss) associated with PFAS-related other environmental and Combat Arms Earplugs matters,

◦ loss on business divestitures (see Note 4) divestiture costs (related to separating and divesting substantially an entire business segment of 3M following public announcement of its intended divestiture) that were not eligible to be part of discontinued operations, and

◦ net costs for significant litigation impacting operating income (loss),

◦ manufactured PFAS products activity

◦ (loss) gain on business divestitures (see Note 3), and

◦ transformation program restructuring (see Note 5) and related charges.

• Other corporate (expense) income-net includes:

◦ certain enterprise and governance activities resulting in unallocated corporate costs and other activity or costs that 3M may choose not to allocate directly to its business segments,

◦ commercial activity with Solventum following its April 1, 2024 Separation and certain operations of the former Health Care business segment retained by 3M,

◦ transition arrangement agreements (e.g., fees charged by 3M, net of underlying costs) related to divested businesses, including those related to the Solventum Separation,

◦ operations of businesses of the former Health Care segment divested prior to the Separation and therefore not reflected as discontinued operations within 3M's financial statements, along with limited-duration supply agreements with previous divestitures, and

◦ costs previously allocated to Solventum prior to the Separation that were not eligible to be part of discontinued operations.

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Financial Statements