More than 7,000 public water systems are eligible for PFAS settlement funds. The deadline is July 2026. And most municipal officials are hearing about this opportunity for the first time from firms they’ve never encountered before.
The skepticism makes sense. Municipal officials are trained to be cautious about unsolicited offers, especially ones that sound too good to be true. “No upfront cost” and “billions in available funds” are exactly the phrases that trigger alarm bells.
So when evaluating PFAS settlement recovery services, what should municipalities actually look for? And why do the ones who do their research choose ERCZilla?
A Track Record You Can Verify
ERCZilla didn’t start with PFAS. We started with the Employee Retention Credit program, a COVID-era tax credit that allowed businesses to recover payroll taxes. The program was complex, the documentation requirements were demanding, and the deadlines were strict.
Sound familiar?
Over four years, we processed more than 1,000 ERC claims and recovered over $350 million for our clients. These weren’t theoretical recoveries. They were real funds deposited into real accounts for organizations that would have otherwise missed the opportunity.
“Our ERC track record isn’t just a number,” says Chris Youlton, ERCZilla Co-Founder. “Each of those 1,000+ claims represented an organization that needed help navigating a complex process. We learned what works, what doesn’t, and how to get results consistently.”
When the ERC program closed for new claims, we had a choice: wind down or apply what we’d learned to a new opportunity. The PFAS settlement was a natural fit. Same complexity. Same documentation challenges. Same deadline pressure. Different program, same skill set.
Why the Pivot to PFAS Settlement Recovery
The PFAS settlement shares DNA with the ERC program. Both involve:
- Complex eligibility requirements that most organizations don’t fully understand
- Documentation and testing protocols that require coordination
- Multiple deadlines that can eliminate recovery if missed
- A contingency-based model where expertise determines outcomes
“When we looked at the PFAS settlement, we saw the same pattern we’d seen with ERC,” explains Don Frazier, ERCZilla Co-Founder. “Billions in funds available. Thousands of eligible organizations. Complex requirements. And a deadline that many would miss because they didn’t know where to start.”
The skills that made us successful with ERC, understanding regulations, managing documentation, tracking deadlines, and advocating for clients, translate directly to PFAS settlement recovery. The context changes. The competencies remain.
The Legal Partnership Model
PFAS settlement claims require legal expertise. Filing claims, communicating with the settlement administrator, and navigating the court-approved process all benefit from attorneys who understand this specific settlement.
ERCZilla partners with nationally recognized law firms that specialize in PFAS litigation and class action settlements. This partnership means municipalities get:
- Attorneys with deep expertise in PFAS settlements handling all legal filings
- Direct communication with the Claims Administrator through experienced counsel
- Professional representation throughout the claims process
- No additional legal fees beyond the contingency arrangement
“We handle client relationships, eligibility verification, and process coordination,” says Sarah Mitchell, Municipal Partnerships Lead at ERCZilla. “Our legal partners handle the filings and settlement administration. Municipalities get the benefit of both without managing multiple vendors.”
This model keeps things simple for municipal staff. One point of contact. One engagement. Access to both operational expertise and legal representation.
The Contingency Model Explained
ERCZilla works on a contingency basis. This means:
- No upfront fees
- No retainers
- No payment unless we recover funds
We even cover testing costs during the claims process. Municipalities don’t write a check until settlement funds are deposited.
“The contingency model removes the budget risk that makes municipal officials hesitant,” notes David Park, PFAS Claims Specialist at ERCZilla. “If we don’t recover funds, you pay nothing. That’s not a sales pitch. It’s how we’ve operated since day one.”
This structure aligns our interests with yours. We only succeed when you succeed. There’s no scenario where your municipality pays us and doesn’t receive settlement funds.
Who’s Behind ERCZilla
ERCZilla is operated by The Pittsburgh Group, Inc., a Pennsylvania-based company. We’re headquartered in Pittsburgh and serve municipalities nationwide.
Chris Youlton, Co-Founder
Chris brings extensive experience in investment banking and regulatory compliance. His background in financial services gives him deep expertise in navigating complex documentation requirements and regulatory frameworks. He recognized early that the ERC program’s complexity would prevent many eligible organizations from participating. That insight led to ERCZilla’s founding. Chris leads operations and strategic partnerships, ensuring our processes meet the highest standards of accuracy and compliance.
Don Frazier, Co-Founder
Don’s understanding of business challenges is personal. His family owns and operates a restaurant in Pennsylvania, a business that nearly closed during the pandemic before successfully accessing ERC funds. That experience crystallized his commitment to helping organizations navigate complex recovery programs. With over 20 years of experience in capital acquisition and business development, Don leads claims processing and client relationships. He understands firsthand what’s at stake for the organizations we serve.
“When our restaurant was struggling, we almost didn’t apply for ERC because the process seemed too complicated,” Frazier recalls. “Once we got through it and saw the impact, I knew other organizations needed help accessing these programs. That’s what drives everything we do.”
What Working with ERCZilla Looks Like
The process is designed to require minimal time from municipal staff. Here’s what to expect:
Step 1: Eligibility Review
We verify whether your water system qualifies for the PFAS settlement. This takes about 15 minutes on a call. No preparation required on your end.
Step 2: Authorization
If you’re eligible and decide to move forward, you sign an authorization allowing us to act on your municipality’s behalf. This is a straightforward document, not a lengthy contract.
Step 3: Testing Coordination
We coordinate PFAS testing at each of your water sources. We cover the testing costs upfront. You provide access to the testing sites.
Step 4: Documentation and Filing
We prepare all required documentation and work with our legal partners to submit claims by the appropriate deadlines. You review and approve key filings.
Step 5: Settlement Distribution
When settlement funds are allocated to your municipality, we facilitate the distribution. Our fee comes out of the recovered funds, not your budget.
“Most municipal officials tell us they expected the process to be much more burdensome,” Mitchell says. “The reality is that we handle the heavy lifting. Their involvement is limited to providing information and approving submissions.”
Why Skepticism Is Healthy (And How to Verify)
If you’re skeptical about this opportunity, good. Municipal officials should verify before engaging with any firm.
Here’s how to confirm what we’ve told you:
The settlement is real. The AFFF Multi-District Litigation is a matter of public record, overseen by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Court documents are publicly available.
The deadlines are real. Phase 2 claims must be submitted by July 2026. This isn’t marketing urgency. It’s a court-established deadline.
Our track record is verifiable. We’ve processed over 1,000 ERC claims. Client references are available upon request.
The contingency model is real. Our engagement terms are straightforward. You can review them before committing to anything.
“We tell every municipality the same thing: verify everything,” Park says. “We’re confident in what we do. Skepticism doesn’t concern us. Inaction does, because the deadline doesn’t move.”
The Cost of Not Acting
Municipalities that don’t file claims by July 2026 forfeit their right to settlement funds permanently. There’s no extension. No second chance. No appeal.
The average recovery for eligible municipalities is approximately $2.5 million, though amounts vary based on PFAS detection levels and water system size. For systems with multiple independent water sources, each source may qualify separately.
These aren’t hypothetical funds. Phase 1 municipalities are already receiving payments. The question for Phase 2 systems is whether they’ll file in time to receive theirs.
Next Steps
If your municipality operates a public water system, start with an eligibility review. It takes 15 minutes, costs nothing, and gives you the information you need to make an informed decision.
Schedule an eligibility review with ERCZilla. We’ll confirm whether your system qualifies, explain what’s involved, and answer your questions. No obligation.
You can also learn more about the claims process or review our frequently asked questions. The deadline is fixed. The funds are available. And we’re here to help you claim your share.
