Is the Grass Always Greener on the Other Side?

The global artificial turf market is projected to reach almost $10 billion by 2030.[1] This is despite growing concerns that the downsides of artificial turf usage far outweigh its benefits, particularly in respect of its environmental impact and its propensity to cause personal injury. Insurers should therefore remain cognisant of these risks.

In the United Kingdom, artificial turf is widely used by schools, local authorities, sports organisations and private individuals for surfaces on, for example, children’s playgrounds, sports facilities and home gardens. It is often presented as a safer, cheaper and more durable alternative to natural grass, amongst other benefits including allegedly being more eco-friendly. However, its use in recent years has become contested, with the U.K. government issuing several petitions to prohibit its sale, purchase, deployment and use due to environmental concerns.[2]

Similar concerns have arisen in other countries. For example, in the U.S., city and county governments in California were afforded the power to ban or regulate artificial turf in residential settings in 2023 due to the potential risks,[3] with the L.A. city council being the first to consider a possible ban.[4] Whilst the European Union has not (as yet) specifically regulated the use of artificial turf, it has committed to a ban, coming into effect in 2031, which will prohibit the use of intentionally added crumb rubber infill (one of the main components in artificial turf) as part of a wider effort to reduce microplastics usage. More boldly, the Netherlands will begin phasing out the use of artificial grass altogether on sports fields in 2030. 

Environmental Risks

From an environmental perspective, there has been a steady increase in actions alleging that artificial turf is a pollutant. For instance, in 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington considered a claim by the U.S. federal government, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, against a dam operator, Electron Hydro LLC, and its release of approximately 600 square yards of artificial turf and smaller amounts of crumb rubber into the Puyallup River. A $1.025 million fine was issued to Electron Hydro LLC in July 2024. The Puyallup Tribe, who joined the claim in August 2021, had opposed this fine and instead argued that the maximum potential penalty should have been $229.5 million to accurately reflect the damage done. However, this was unsuccessful.

Health Risks

There are also a number of claims that allege the use of artificial turf can result in personal injury. For instance, there is an ongoing debate surrounding the safety of sports being played on artificial turf fields, particularly amongst National Football League players. The primary source of their concern is the increased risk of lower-extremity injuries faced by athletes (and others who play on artificial turfs). In particular, such athletes claim that, over time, the turf gets harder and loses its ability to absorb impact, thereby increasing the risk of injury. Thus, it seems the issue is potentially even greater in respect of old artificial turf fields. Further, athletes also claim that the turf does not appropriately “release” their cleats, causing unnecessary and dangerous overload and pressure.

Aside from physical sporting injuries, there are also claims linking artificial turf to certain cancers. In particular, it is reported that the crumb rubber typically contained in artificial turf is carcinogenic. Crumb rubber is generally interspersed among the artificial grass fibres to allow individuals to slide more easily on the field. However, it is often made from reclaimed car tyres that can contain lead and mercury. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as the turf ages and weathers, lead is released in dust that could then be ingested or inhaled, and the risk for harmful exposure increases.[5]

As a result of increasing research and an artificial turf cancer lawsuit filed by the California Attorney General’s office,[6] some of the biggest manufacturers of artificial turf in the U.S. have started to address the amount of lead in their products. The lawsuit by the California Attorney General specifically alleged that the companies failed to warn customers of the potentially dangerous toxins contained in their products. The lawsuit was ultimately settled against one defendant in 2009, followed by the other two in 2010. However pursuant to the respective settlements, amongst other matters, the companies agreed to limit the lead composition of their products to a maximum of 50 parts per million.

In the U.K., a study by Stirling University has also called for crumb rubber infill to be banned in Scotland due to it containing potentially cancerous materials.[7] On 12 May 2025, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also published a report outlining the outcome of a project it had conducted on intentionally added microplastics. Notably, the project found that:

• the largest sources of microplastics emissions over the time period are materials used in synthetic sports surfaces (16,866 tonnes); and
• emissions of intentionally added microplastics end up in different environmental compartments (such as soil or waterbodies), resulting in persistent environmental exposure.

Accordingly, as further research is conducted on the potential risks, particularly in relation to cancer, arising from components of artificial turf (e.g. lead or crumb rubber), we expect manufacturers are likely to continue to draw scrutiny, including by way of further lawsuits.

Considerations for insurers

Given the potential scope for litigation arising from artificial turf, this raises interesting coverage considerations for insurers. At a minimum, it appears that liability insurers may face exposure due to the developing environmental concerns of artificial turf if, for example, in a similar manner to the ongoing PFAS litigation, artificial turf (or the components thereof) are deemed to be pollutants and are found in water streams. There is also an increasing risk to insurers in respect of personal injury claims - firstly to the extent that scientific evidence is able to demonstrate a meaningful causal link between the emissions from artificial turf and the development of cancer, and secondly to the extent that more individuals experience personal injuries due to old, hardened turf. This could involve a wide pool of plaintiffs considering the breadth of users (including athletes and children) of artificial turf.

An interesting potential exposure could also be if insureds decide to undertake preventative measures by pre-emptively removing the turf from their premises. In such circumstances, it is plausible that the insureds would seek cover for the costs of such works under their policies claiming that this was responding to a public nuisance. These are just a handful of the potential exposures for liability insurers.

The potential defendants in personal injury or environmental related claims could also be complex, including the turf manufacturers, companies that manufacture the various components of turf (including the plastic grass blades, and the infill material used), companies that carry out the installation works and/or turf purchasers (e.g. schools, universities, sporting organisation). The entire supply chain is also at risk.

Although it is not possible to ascertain with precision when these claims will materialise, a likely trigger will be the publishing of conclusive and impartial studies regarding the correlation between the use of artificial turfs and the likelihood of personal injury and potential cancer risks.