You Just Found Out Your Water Has “Forever Chemicals” in It — Here Is What That Means and What You Can Do
You live in Sioux Falls, or somewhere along the Big Sioux River between northeast South Dakota and the Iowa border. You drink the water. Maybe you have for years. Maybe your kids grew up on it. And now a study has confirmed what nobody told you: fifteen different types of PFAS — “forever chemicals” that do not break down in your body — have been sitting in that river, at concentrations that in some places reach twenty-five times what the federal government says is safe to drink.
The highest readings are right here in Sioux Falls. One hotspot is at Falls Park, downtown, where families walk and children play near the water. The other is at the Sioux Falls Regional Airport — and that is not a coincidence. The airport shares its property with the South Dakota Air National Guard’s 114th Fighter Wing, and for decades, military and civilian firefighting operations at that dual-use facility used aqueous film-forming foam — AFFF — loaded with PFAS compounds. The foam was used in training, in emergency response, and in equipment testing. It washed into the ground, into the groundwater, and into the river. And it is still there.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort cases — cases where corporations or government facilities put dangerous chemicals into the environment and into people’s bodies, and then said nothing until independent scientists forced the truth into the open. What happened in the Big Sioux River is not a mystery. The contamination has a source, a pathway, and a paper trail. The question is whether you act before the evidence disappears and before the legal clock runs out.
This page is written for one person: you, reading this at your kitchen table in Sioux Falls or Watertown or a small town along the river, wondering whether the water you trusted has been making your family sick — and what, if anything, you can do about it. We are going to answer that question honestly, completely, and without soft-pedaling the hard parts.
What PFAS “Forever Chemicals” Actually Are — and Why the Name Is Not Marketing
PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are a class of thousands of synthetic chemicals that have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s — in nonstick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, food packaging, and most significantly for this case, in firefighting foam. The carbon-fluorine bond that gives PFAS their useful properties is one of the strongest chemical bonds in organic chemistry. That is precisely why they are called “forever chemicals”: they do not break down. Not in the environment. Not in the river. Not in your body.
The EPA recognized this reality when it set the health-based goal for PFOA and PFOS — two of the most studied PFAS compounds — at zero. Not at a small number. At zero. The federal government’s own regulatory finding is that there is no level of these chemicals in drinking water that carries no health risk. The enforceable limit — the Maximum Contaminant Level — was set at 4.0 parts per trillion. That is roughly the equivalent of four drops of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The fact that the Big Sioux River near the airport tested at twenty-five times that limit means the water there carried a concentration the federal government has determined is unsafe to drink, by a factor that is not close.
“EPA is finalizing . . . individual MCLs for PFOA and PFOS at 4.0 nanograms per liter (ng/L) or parts per trillion (ppt) . . . and is finalizing health-based Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for PFOA and PFOS at zero.”
That is the federal regulation, finalized in April 2024. The health goal is zero. The legal limit is four parts per trillion. The river near the airport tested at up to twenty-five times that. When a government agency sets the safe level at zero and the enforceable limit at a number so small it is nearly undetectable, it is telling you something: these chemicals are dangerous at any dose, and the company or facility that released them does not get to argue about whether the contamination was “enough” to matter.
PFAS compounds bioaccumulate — meaning they build up in your body over time. You drink a small amount today, a small amount tomorrow, and the compounds do not leave. They bind to proteins in your blood, concentrate in your liver and kidneys, and persist for years. The biological half-life of some PFAS compounds in the human body is measured in years, not days. That is why blood serum testing can detect your personal exposure level — and why earlier testing provides stronger evidence than later testing, because the compounds are still in your blood at concentrations that reflect what you absorbed.
The Health Conditions Linked to PFAS Exposure
PFAS exposure is associated in the peer-reviewed scientific literature with a specific set of diseases. The most authoritative epidemiological findings come from the C8 Science Panel — a group of independent epidemiologists who studied the health effects of PFOA exposure in a population of approximately 69,000 people in the Ohio River Valley. The panel found a “probable link” between PFOA and six conditions:
Kidney cancer. The C8 Science Panel found a probable link between PFOA and kidney cancer. IARC, the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, has classified PFOA as Group 1 — carcinogenic to humans — based on sufficient animal evidence and strong mechanistic evidence, with human evidence showing limited associations with testicular and renal-cell cancer.
Testicular cancer. The probable link between PFOA and testicular cancer is one of the strongest findings from the C8 data.
Thyroid disease. PFAS compounds interfere with thyroid function. The C8 panel found a probable link to thyroid disease.
Ulcerative colitis. The panel found a probable link between PFOA and this inflammatory bowel disease.
Pregnancy-induced hypertension. Elevated PFAS exposure was linked to high blood pressure during pregnancy, a condition that can threaten both mother and child.
High cholesterol. PFAS exposure is linked to elevated cholesterol levels, which is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
In addition to the C8 probable links, the EPA has identified developmental and reproductive effects, immune system dysfunction, and liver damage as potential consequences of PFAS exposure. The full scope of health effects is still being studied — PFAS is a relatively new area of environmental medicine — but the conditions above are the ones with the strongest scientific backing.
What This Means for You Specifically
If you have lived near the Big Sioux River, drawn drinking water from wells near the river, or spent time at Falls Park with direct contact with the river water — and you have been diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, or pregnancy-induced hypertension — the contamination detected in this study may be connected to your diagnosis. We cannot tell you that it is, not without a full medical and exposure evaluation. But the science says the connection is real, and the law says you have the right to investigate it.
If you have not been diagnosed with any of these conditions but you know you have been exposed, the most important thing you can do is get a blood serum PFAS test. This test measures the concentration of PFAS compounds in your blood. It does not tell you whether you will get sick. But it documents your exposure — and that documentation is the foundation of any future claim, whether for medical monitoring or for personal injury if a disease develops.
The proof problem in every toxic tort case is specific causation — proving that your individual disease was caused by your individual exposure, not by something else. PFAS is everywhere in the modern environment, which means the defense will argue that your exposure came from consumer products or background contamination, not from the river. The counter is dose reconstruction: showing that your exposure was elevated — that your blood serum levels are higher than background, that your drinking water source was contaminated, and that the contamination can be traced to a specific source. The earlier you test, the stronger your evidence, because PFAS accumulates over time and earlier testing captures a higher concentration before any intervention reduces your levels.
Who Is Responsible: The Defendant Map
In a PFAS contamination case, the defendants are not a single entity. They are a stack — and naming every layer is what separates a case that recovers from one that runs dry.
The AFFF Manufacturers
The companies that designed, manufactured, and sold aqueous film-forming foam containing PFAS compounds are the first target. Public-record evidence — including internal corporate documents that have surfaced in the AFFF MDL and in earlier PFAS litigation — supports the claim that major chemical companies were aware of the persistence and potential health risks of PFAS compounds for years, in some cases decades, before those risks were disclosed to the public. This evidence is the engine for punitive damages, because it shows not just that the companies made a dangerous product, but that they knew it was dangerous and sold it anyway.
Product liability claims against AFFF manufacturers include strict liability for design defect (the foam was unreasonably dangerous because safer alternatives existed), failure to warn (the companies did not adequately warn users — including military and civilian firefighters — about the health risks), and negligence in the design, testing, and marketing of the product. These claims are coordinated through the AFFF MDL in federal court, while parallel state-court claims against facility operators can be preserved for forum advantages and defendant-specific discovery.
The Federal Government: Department of Defense and Air National Guard
The Sioux Falls Regional Airport is co-located with the South Dakota Air National Guard’s 114th Fighter Wing, making it a dual-use facility where military AFFF training and emergency response activities are documented sources of PFAS contamination. Claims against the federal government — the Department of Defense, the Air National Guard, and related federal entities — require compliance with the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The FTCA is not like an ordinary lawsuit. Before you can sue the United States, you must first file a written administrative claim — a Standard Form 95 — with the appropriate federal agency. The claim must state a specific dollar amount. If the agency denies the claim, you have six months to file suit in federal court. If the agency does not act within six months, you may treat the silence as a denial and sue. The statute of limitations for presenting the claim is two years from the date the claim accrues. Missing either the presentment deadline or the six-month suit deadline bars the claim forever — the statute’s own word.
There are also exceptions to FTCA liability that the government will raise. The discretionary function exception shields the government for policy-level judgment calls. The intentional tort exception generally bars claims for assault, battery, and similar conduct — though a proviso restores liability for certain intentional acts by federal law enforcement officers. For PFAS contamination from military AFFF use, the government is expected to argue that its firefighting training protocols involved discretionary judgment and that the use of AFFF was mandated by military specifications. These defenses are not impenetrable, but they require careful briefing and a lawyer who understands the FTCA’s procedural maze.
The Sioux Falls Regional Airport Authority
The airport authority operates the civilian side of the dual-use facility and may have its own AFFF use history — civilian airports are required to maintain aircraft rescue and firefighting capabilities, and AFFF has been the standard foam for that purpose. The airport authority is a separate potential defendant from the military, with its own insurance coverage, its own records, and its own duty to manage the environmental consequences of its operations.
The City of Sioux Falls
The city operates the public drinking water system and has already suspended twenty-one wells suspected of PFAS contamination. The city’s role is complex: it is both a potential victim of the contamination (forced to shut down wells and treat water) and a potential defendant (if it failed to adequately monitor, notify, or protect its water supply). Claims against the city may be subject to South Dakota’s municipal tort claim provisions, which include notice-of-claim deadlines that must be confirmed and met.
Ellsworth Air Force Base and Other South Dakota Sites
Separate from the Big Sioux River contamination, a forever chemical has been detected in drinking water wells near Ellsworth Air Force Base at Box Elder. National Guard facilities near Custer and in Rapid City have also shown PFAS contamination, as have three private wells in the state. If you live near any of these sites, the legal framework is similar — the source identification, exposure pathway, and defendant structure will differ in detail but not in principle. The toxic tort claim process is the same.
What Evidence Must Be Preserved — and How Fast It Disappears
Every toxic tort case lives or dies on evidence. In a PFAS contamination case, the evidence falls into six categories, and each category has its own clock — its own risk of disappearing before anyone asks for it.
AFFF Purchase, Storage, Use, Training, and Disposal Records
These records are held by the Sioux Falls Regional Airport, the Air National Guard base, and potentially the airport authority. They prove the source, duration, and volume of PFAS release into the environment. Federal records retention requirements apply to military facilities, but personnel turnover, facility modifications, and the passage of decades erode institutional knowledge. The preservation letter that demands these records must go out early — before the people who know where the records are stored retire or move on.
Historical Well Water Sampling Data and PFAS Test Results
The City of Sioux Falls has been testing raw water samples for PFAS since suspending the twenty-one wells near the airport. These results document the contamination timeline, concentrations, and the city’s response. Public records are subject to retention policies, and well-specific data can be lost when wells are closed and infrastructure is modified. A records demand targeting the city’s water quality data should be filed promptly.
The South Dakota Mines / East Dakota Water Development District Study Data
The academic study that detected PFAS at thirteen sites along the river is the scientific foundation for exposure assessment. Academic research data is typically retained under research protocols, so this evidence is at lower risk of disappearing. But the raw data, the sampling methodology, and the analytical results should be obtained and preserved as part of the case file.
Hydrogeological Data on Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction
This data proves the exposure pathway — how PFAS in the river reaches drinking water wells. Geological data is relatively stable, but well-specific flow data and pumping records can be lost with infrastructure changes. A hydrogeologist retained as an expert witness can model the transport of PFAS from the airport and base to the river and to municipal and private wells, but the model needs accurate input data — and that data must be obtained before it is lost.
Employee Health and Exposure Records
For Air National Guard and airport personnel who handled AFFF directly, employee health and exposure records may document occupational exposure and early health effects. These records are subject to federal privacy protections and retention schedules, and personnel turnover means the records become harder to locate over time. If you are a former or current military or civilian firefighter who worked with AFFF at the Sioux Falls airport, your personnel and medical records are a critical part of this evidence, and you should request them now.
Blood Serum PFAS Testing Data
This is the most important evidence for your individual case. A blood serum PFAS test measures the concentration of PFAS compounds in your blood, providing a direct biomarker of your individual absorption and retention. Because PFAS biological half-lives are measured in years, earlier testing provides a higher and more accurate baseline — before any intervention (filtered water, bottled water, medical treatment) reduces your serum levels. If you are considering legal action, getting a blood serum test now is not just a health decision. It is an evidence decision. The test result is the proof that connects the contamination in the river to the contamination in your body.
The Insurance and Corporate Playbook — and How We Counter It
The companies responsible for PFAS contamination are not going to volunteer to pay you. They have teams of lawyers, adjusters, and risk managers whose job is to minimize what they pay. Here are the plays you should expect — and how we counter each one.
Play 1: “Your Exposure Came From Other Sources”
The defense will argue that PFAS is everywhere — in nonstick pans, food packaging, stain-resistant carpets — and that your blood serum levels reflect background environmental exposure, not contamination from the Big Sioux River. This is the “ubiquity defense,” and it is the single most common argument in PFAS litigation.
Our counter: Dose reconstruction. If your blood serum levels are elevated above background, if your drinking water source is documented as contaminated, and if the contamination can be traced to a specific source (AFFF at the airport), the exposure pathway is established. A hydrogeologist models how PFAS moved from the facility to the river to your well. An environmental toxicologist opines on the dose-response relationship. And your blood serum test provides the individual biomarker that ties the environmental contamination to your body.
Play 2: “We Followed the Rules at the Time”
AFFF manufacturers will argue that they complied with all applicable regulations when they sold the foam, and that they cannot be held liable for doing what the law allowed. This is the “compliance defense.”
Our counter: CERCLA liability is strict and retroactive. Compliance with regulations is not a defense. And for product liability claims against the manufacturers, the argument is not that they broke a rule — it is that they knew their product was dangerous and did not warn the people who used it. The public-record evidence of corporate knowledge of PFAS health risks, developed over years of litigation, is the answer to the compliance defense. A company that knew its product could cause cancer and sold it without a warning is liable regardless of what the regulations said at the time.
Play 3: “The Federal Government Is Immune”
For claims against the Department of Defense and the Air National Guard, the government will raise sovereign immunity defenses under the FTCA — particularly the discretionary function exception, which shields the government for policy-level judgment calls.
Our counter: The FTCA’s discretionary function exception does not shield the government for violating mandatory safety regulations or for failing to follow its own protocols. If military regulations required specific containment and disposal procedures for AFFF, and those procedures were not followed, the exception may not apply. And the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso restores liability for certain intentional acts by federal officers. The federal claims require a lawyer who understands the FTCA’s procedural requirements — the administrative claim, the sum certain, the six-month deemed denial — and who can navigate the exceptions without running into a jurisdictional wall.
Play 4: “You Waited Too Long”
The defense will argue that the statute of limitations has expired — that you knew or should have known about the contamination before the study was published, and that the clock has already run.
Our counter: The discovery rule. For most residents along the Big Sioux River, the knowledge that their water was contaminated with PFAS at levels exceeding federal safety limits began in April 2026, when the study results were publicly presented. Before that, they had no reason to suspect that their drinking water contained forever chemicals. The discovery rule starts the clock when knowledge arrives — not when the exposure began.
Play 5: The Quick Settlement Offer
If the defense recognizes that your case is strong, they may make a quick, low settlement offer — before you have retained a lawyer, before you have had a blood serum test, before you know the full extent of your exposure and its health consequences. The offer will come with a release that waives all future claims, including claims for diseases that have not yet developed.
Our counter: Never sign a release before you know what you are releasing. PFAS exposure can cause diseases that take years to manifest. A release that settles your current claims may also extinguish your right to compensation for a cancer diagnosis that comes three years from now. We evaluate every settlement offer against the full lifetime cost of your exposure — not just the cost of what has already happened, but the cost of what may still come.
Your First Steps: What to Do Now
Step 1: Stop drinking untested water. If you draw water from a private well near the Big Sioux River — particularly near the airport, near Falls Park, or south of Watertown — have your water tested for PFAS. The South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources is conducting its own study of PFAS in state surface waters, expected to conclude in 2026. In the meantime, if you are concerned, bottled water or a certified PFAS filter is a reasonable precaution.
Step 2: Get a blood serum PFAS test. This is the single most important evidence step you can take. The test documents your personal exposure level. It does not tell you whether you will get sick, but it establishes the baseline that connects the contamination in the river to the contamination in your body. Earlier testing is better — PFAS accumulates over time, and testing now captures levels before any intervention reduces them.
Step 3: Document your exposure history. Write down where you have lived, how long you lived there, and what water source you drank from at each address. If you worked at the airport, the Air National Guard base, or any facility where AFFF was used, document your employment dates and job duties. If you have been diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, or pregnancy-induced hypertension, gather your medical records — diagnosis date, treating physician, treatment history.
Step 4: Do not sign anything from an insurance company or defendant. If you receive a communication offering to settle, offering to test your water, or asking you to sign a release or authorization — do not sign it. Call a lawyer first. A release you sign today may extinguish your right to compensation for a disease that develops years from now.
Step 5: Call us. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And the day you call is the day the preservation letter goes out — freezing the evidence before it disappears. Contact us at 1-888-ATTY-911, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. You will speak to a live person, not an answering service.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are PFAS “forever chemicals” and why are they called that?
PFAS are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — a class of thousands of synthetic chemicals used since the 1940s in products like nonstick cookware, food packaging, and firefighting foam. They are called “forever chemicals” because the carbon-fluorine bonds that make them useful are among the strongest in chemistry, meaning they do not break down — not in the environment, not in the river, and not in the human body. The EPA set the health-based goal for PFOA and PFOS at zero, meaning there is no amount they consider safe.
How did PFAS get into the Big Sioux River?
Independent university testing identified the highest concentrations of PFAS near the Sioux Falls Regional Airport, which is co-located with the South Dakota Air National Guard’s 114th Fighter Wing. Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) — the firefighting foam used at military and civilian airports for decades — contains PFAS compounds. When the foam is used in training, equipment testing, or emergency response, it washes into the soil and groundwater and migrates into surface water. The airport sits adjacent to the Big Sioux River, making the pathway from foam to river short and direct.
Can PFAS in the river reach my drinking water?
Yes. Eastern South Dakota’s geology features shallow alluvial aquifers that are hydraulically connected to the Big Sioux River. Under certain conditions — high river stage, heavy groundwater pumping — river water can infiltrate wells near the river. The City of Sioux Falls has already suspended twenty-one wells near the airport because PFAS was detected in them. If you draw water from a private well near the river, your water may be even more directly connected to the river’s contamination, and private wells are not subject to the same testing requirements as public systems.
What health conditions are linked to PFAS exposure?
The C8 Science Panel — independent epidemiologists who studied approximately 69,000 people exposed to PFOA — found a “probable link” between PFOA and six conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and high cholesterol. IARC, the World Health Organization’s cancer authority, has classified PFOA as Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans). The EPA has also identified developmental and reproductive effects, immune system dysfunction, and liver damage as potential consequences.
Should I get my blood tested for PFAS?
Yes — if you know you have been exposed to contaminated water, a blood serum PFAS test is the single most important step you can take. The test measures the concentration of PFAS compounds in your blood and documents your personal exposure level. It does not tell you whether you will get sick, but it establishes the evidence that connects the contamination in the river to the contamination in your body. Earlier testing is better because PFAS accumulates over time and earlier testing captures a higher concentration before any intervention reduces your levels.
How long do I have to file a lawsuit?
South Dakota’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims is generally three years, but toxic tort claims invoke the discovery rule — the clock may not start until you discover or should have discovered both the injury and its connection to the exposure. For many residents along the Big Sioux River, that knowledge began in April 2026 when the study results were publicly presented. Claims against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act have different deadlines: two years to file an administrative claim, then six months to sue after denial. Claims against the City of Sioux Falls may be subject to shorter notice-of-claim deadlines. The safe approach is to act promptly — do not assume you have unlimited time.
Who can be held responsible for the contamination?
The defendant stack includes: the AFFF manufacturers (major chemical companies facing ongoing multidistrict litigation for PFAS contamination nationwide), the federal government (Department of Defense and Air National Guard, for military AFFF use at the co-located base), the Sioux Falls Regional Airport Authority (for civilian AFFF use and facility management), and potentially the City of Sioux Falls (for water system management and notification duties). Each defendant has a different legal posture, different insurance coverage, and different defenses — naming every layer is what separates a case that recovers from one that runs dry.
What is the AFFF multidistrict litigation and how does it affect my case?
The AFFF MDL (MDL No. 2873) is a consolidated federal proceeding in the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel, with more than 15,000 cases pending as of mid-2026. It includes both water provider claims and personal injury claims. The manufacturers — including 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva — have already agreed to settle water provider claims for billions of dollars. Personal injury bellwether cases focused on kidney cancer are being prepared for trial. If you have a personal injury claim against AFFF manufacturers, it may be coordinated with the MDL, while parallel state-court claims against facility operators can be preserved.
What is my case worth?
The value of a PFAS case depends on whether you have a diagnosed disease linked to PFAS exposure. For medical monitoring and property damage claims without a diagnosed disease, the range is approximately $250,000 to $750,000. For personal injury claims with a diagnosed PFAS-linked cancer — particularly with strong specific causation evidence (elevated blood serum levels, documented exposure through contaminated water, and a defendant with punitive damages exposure) — the range is approximately $3,000,000 to $20,000,000 or more. Wrongful death claims apply where PFAS exposure is linked to fatal disease. Every case is evaluated on its own facts. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
What should I do right now?
Stop drinking untested water if you draw from a private well near the river. Get a blood serum PFAS test. Document your residential and occupational exposure history. Do not sign anything from an insurance company or defendant. And call us at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a free, confidential consultation. The preservation letter that freezes the evidence goes out the day you hire us — and in a PFAS case, the evidence is the case.
Can I still have a case if I do not have cancer?
Yes. Medical monitoring — the cost of ongoing blood serum testing, cancer screening, and thyroid surveillance for people exposed to contaminated water but not yet diagnosed with a disease — is a recognized category of damages in toxic tort cases. Whether medical monitoring is available as an independent cause of action in South Dakota, separate from a personal injury claim, is a legal question that must be evaluated for your specific situation. Property damage — the diminution in value of real property near a contaminated water source — is also a recoverable category of damages.
Is the water safe to drink now?
The EPA’s drinking water limits apply to finished drinking water, not to surface water like the Big Sioux River. The City of Sioux Falls has suspended twenty-one wells near the airport and now tests raw water samples for PFAS. If you are on a municipal water system, contact your water provider and ask for the most recent PFAS test results. If you are on a private well, have your water tested — private wells are not subject to the same monitoring requirements as public systems, and contamination may go undetected. The South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources is conducting its own study of PFAS in state surface waters, expected to conclude in 2026.
The Bottom Line
You did not choose to drink forever chemicals. Someone else made that choice for you — when they used firefighting foam loaded with PFAS at a facility next to the river, when they did not contain it, when they did not test for it, and when they did not tell you it was there. The contamination is documented. The source is identified. The health risks are real. And the law gives you the right to hold the responsible parties accountable — for the cost of monitoring your health, for the cost of treating any disease the exposure caused, and for the damage to your property and your peace of mind.
But the evidence has a clock. The records that prove who used the foam and when can be legally destroyed. The blood serum levels that prove your exposure decline over time. And the legal deadlines — the statute of limitations, the FTCA’s two-year presentment rule, the municipal notice-of-claim window — do not wait for you to feel ready.
The day you call is the day the evidence gets frozen. The day you call is the day someone starts fighting for you instead of against you. The call is free. The consultation is confidential. And you do not pay a dime unless we win your case.
1-888-ATTY-911. 24/7. Live staff. Not an answering service.
Hablamos Español.
The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — Attorney911. Legal Emergency Lawyers™. We do not get paid unless we win your case.