Mesothelioma Law Firm Regulatory Challenges: TSCA, EPA, and Asbestos Claims

For decades, asbestos exposure has been a major public health and legal issue, leading to devastating cases of mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis. While asbestos use has been significantly restricted in the United States, it has not been fully banned, and the legal and regulatory landscape remains complex. Mesothelioma law firms, which represent victims seeking justice and compensation, face significant challenges in navigating regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and evolving asbestos claims in federal and state courts.

By 2025, these challenges have intensified as the EPA implements updated risk evaluations of asbestos, while courts continue to grapple with the balance between corporate liability and victim compensation. For law firms, understanding this intersection of regulation, litigation, and advocacy is crucial to securing justice for clients.

This in-depth article explores the regulatory challenges mesothelioma law firms face in 2025, focusing on TSCA reforms, EPA’s asbestos risk management, asbestos litigation trends, and strategies for navigating claims.

1. Asbestos and Mesothelioma: A Brief Background

Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring silicate minerals with heat-resistant properties. It was widely used in construction, shipbuilding, automotive parts, and insulation.
Mesothelioma is a rare, aggressive cancer primarily linked to asbestos exposure. Symptoms may appear 20–50 years after exposure, complicating diagnosis and litigation.
Victims include industrial workers, military veterans, shipyard employees, construction laborers, and even family members exposed to asbestos fibers brought home on work clothes.
Since the late 20th century, asbestos lawsuits have led to billions in settlements and verdicts, but the litigation environment continues to evolve with regulatory oversight.

2. The Role of TSCA in Asbestos Regulation

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), first enacted in 1976 and significantly amended in 2016 through the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, is the primary federal law regulating chemical substances in the U.S.

Key Provisions Relevant to Asbestos

Chemical Risk Evaluation: The EPA must evaluate chemicals that may pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. Asbestos is on this list.
Risk Management Rules: If a chemical is deemed dangerous, the EPA can restrict or ban it.
Ongoing Use Limitations: Despite restrictions, asbestos is still used in limited applications (e.g., diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry).

2025 TSCA Regulatory Landscape

The EPA finalized its Part 1 risk evaluation of chrysotile asbestos in 2020, identifying unreasonable risks in certain uses.
In 2024–2025, the agency is working on Part 2 evaluations, covering legacy uses (e.g., building materials, brakes, gaskets).
This expanded evaluation has direct implications for litigation, as law firms use EPA findings to strengthen arguments about asbestos risks in past exposures.

3. EPA Oversight of Asbestos

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plays a central role in asbestos regulation under TSCA and other statutes:

Risk Evaluations: EPA’s scientific findings often influence courtroom debates. For example, if the EPA identifies certain asbestos exposures as unreasonably risky, plaintiffs’ attorneys cite these findings to demonstrate corporate negligence.
Risk Management Rules: In 2023, the EPA proposed a ban on chrysotile asbestos—the only form still imported into the U.S. Law firms anticipate stronger claims once the rule takes effect.
Legacy Asbestos: Buildings, schools, and homes still contain asbestos materials. EPA oversight of abatement programs affects litigation involving secondary exposure.

Challenge for law firms: While EPA findings support plaintiffs, regulatory processes are slow. Defendants often argue that asbestos use was lawful under prevailing regulations, complicating liability.

4. Mesothelioma Litigation Landscape in 2025

Despite regulatory restrictions, asbestos-related lawsuits remain one of the longest-running mass torts in U.S. history.

Current Trends

High Payouts and Settlements: Average mesothelioma settlements range from USD 1 million to USD 2.4 million, while trial verdicts can exceed USD 10 million.
Bankruptcy Trusts: Over 60 asbestos bankruptcy trusts have been established to compensate victims, with assets worth more than USD 30 billion.
Shift in Defendants: As traditional asbestos manufacturers went bankrupt, plaintiffs now pursue cases against secondary companies (e.g., contractors, distributors, premises owners).
Emerging Claims: Secondary exposure (e.g., family members) and environmental exposure cases are rising.

Challenges for Law Firms

Complex Causation Proof: Given latency periods, linking exposure decades ago to present illness requires extensive evidence.
Jurisdictional Variations: Some states are more plaintiff-friendly (e.g., California, Illinois, New York), while others impose stricter causation requirements.
Trust Transparency: New rules require disclosure of bankruptcy trust claims, impacting trial strategies.

5. Regulatory Challenges for Mesothelioma Law Firms

Mesothelioma law firms in 2025 face three major regulatory hurdles:

a) TSCA and EPA Regulatory Complexity

While EPA risk evaluations support claims, defendants exploit regulatory gaps, arguing that products complied with laws at the time of use.
Firms must reconcile scientific evidence of risk with legal standards of duty and foreseeability.

b) Disclosure and Transparency Rules

Courts increasingly require plaintiffs to disclose all bankruptcy trust claims before trial. This can weaken negotiation leverage.
New asbestos trust transparency laws in states like Texas and Ohio mandate extensive documentation, prolonging cases.

c) Evolving Medical Standards

Law firms must align with updated EPA and OSHA exposure limits, medical guidelines, and diagnostic criteria for asbestos-related diseases.

6. Intersection of EPA Science and Courtroom Litigation

EPA findings directly impact mesothelioma lawsuits:

Risk Evaluation Reports: Plaintiffs cite these to show that corporations “should have known” about asbestos risks.
Chrysotile Ban (Pending 2025): Strengthens cases against companies that continued importing or using asbestos despite mounting evidence.
Legacy Exposure: EPA’s acknowledgment of risks from in-place asbestos supports claims by individuals exposed in schools, military bases, or old factories.

However, defense attorneys counter that:

Regulations in past decades permitted asbestos use.
EPA’s evolving risk assessments should not retroactively establish liability.

This regulatory vs. legal standard tension is a recurring challenge for law firms.

7. International Perspective

Europe: The EU banned asbestos in 2005, but litigation continues as victims are diagnosed decades later.
Canada: Banned asbestos in 2018; claims persist against historical producers.
Developing Countries: Asbestos is still used in Asia and Africa, raising concerns about future litigation waves.

U.S. firms often collaborate with international experts to demonstrate global consensus on asbestos risks, reinforcing claims.

8. Future Outlook: 2025–2035

Mesothelioma law firms must prepare for evolving challenges:

Broader EPA Bans: If the EPA enacts a full ban by 2025–2026, litigation may expand to cover post-ban violations.
Increased Secondary Exposure Claims: More family-based lawsuits will emerge as awareness grows.
Digital Evidence and AI Tools: Law firms will use AI to analyze decades of industrial records and medical evidence.
Regulatory Harmonization: TSCA amendments may push for stronger asbestos phaseouts, aligning the U.S. with international bans.
Trust Fund Depletion: As bankruptcy trusts diminish, plaintiffs may increasingly rely on direct lawsuits.

9. Strategic Recommendations for Law Firms

Leverage EPA Findings: Use regulatory reports as expert evidence.
Strengthen Medical Partnerships: Collaborate with oncologists and occupational health experts to support causation.
Adapt to Transparency Laws: Build early trust claim strategies to avoid trial surprises.
Educate Juries on Regulation: Clarify that compliance with outdated laws does not equal safety.
Advocate for Policy Reform: Partner with advocacy groups to push for a complete asbestos ban.

Conclusion

By 2025, mesothelioma law firms operate in a complex regulatory and legal environment, where TSCA rules, EPA asbestos evaluations, and evolving litigation standards intersect. While these regulatory frameworks provide powerful evidence for plaintiffs, they also create new hurdles in proving liability and navigating disclosure requirements.

The ultimate challenge—and opportunity—lies in leveraging science, law, and advocacy together. For victims of asbestos exposure, justice depends not only on skilled legal representation but also on the ability of law firms to navigate the shifting terrain of TSCA, EPA oversight, and asbestos claims.

As we look to the next decade, mesothelioma law firms will continue to play a critical role in ensuring accountability, advancing public health, and shaping the legacy of one of history’s longest-running industrial health crises.