EMF/RF Insurance is an important consideration when assessing the potential financial consequences of alleged RF/EMF exposure. A telecommunications company may carry substantial general liability, product liability, excess and other insurance, but that does not necessarily mean those policies provide coverage for liability arising from alleged health effects of RF/EMF exposure.

Telecommunications Infrastructure and Corporate Risk examines the broader corporate-risk framework. This article considers EMF/RF exclusions, litigation, corporate disclosures and retained/uninsured risk. 

Defence Costs and Liability: Two Different Questions 

If a telecom company faces a long-running RF health claim, there are two quite separate financial questions:

• What does it cost the company to defend the litigation?

• If the company loses, or settles, who ultimately bears the liability?

An EMF exclusion could potentially mean that the second risk is retained by the company, rather than transferred to its liability insurer. Depending on the policy wording, even defence costs may be affected.

The distinction between “insured litigation risk” and “retained/uninsured litigation risk”

One cannot assume that because an insurer excludes EMF bodily-injury liability, all costs associated with an RF lawsuit are uninsured. Other policies, coverages, retentions, contractual indemnities and defence provisions can change the picture. Actual policy wording shows that EMF-related liability may be specifically carved out of liability insurance.

Insurance Exclusions Can Limit Coverage 

Existing policy exclusions may limit insurers’ exposure to EMF/RF-related liability.

Example from a South African Policy Wording 

A South African insurance policy wording also demonstrates that electromagnetic-radiation risks can be expressly excluded from liability coverage. For example, the iTOO General Liability Insurance Policy Wording contains an “Electromagnetic Radiation” exclusion addressing liability arising from signal-transmitting lines and towers, including cellular towers, as well as devices including cellular phones and antennas. 

Broad radiation exclusions can encompass non-ionising EMF

An insurance policy can exclude liability for alleged EMF-related injury even where the exclusion is framed as a “radioactive matter” or “radiation” exclusion. An example is the Hammond Power Solutions case. The Seventh Circuit held that, under Wisconsin law, an insurance exclusion covering exposure to “any form of radiation” encompassed the alleged EMF radiation from transformers. The court expressly said that the parties agreed that EMFs qualified as radiation for purposes of the case. It was an insurance-contract interpretation decision, not a scientific finding about health effects. 

The case concerned electromagnetic fields associated with electrical transformers rather than RF communications, but it illustrates how broadly worded radiation exclusions can become relevant to non-ionising EMF claims. 

The Hammond decision demonstrates that the application of a radiation exclusion can itself become the subject of coverage litigation. Hammond Power Solutions, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg No. 24-1642

HHS and the FCC are now seeking public input through separate proceedings concerning RF exposure

HHS is seeking evidence on potential health effects, including effects associated with exposure below current federal limits, cumulative exposure, existing standards, research gaps and possible improvements to assessment and regulation. The FCC’s proceeding addresses the RF-exposure issues arising from the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 remand. 

Questions for the Insurance and Liability Analysis

• How do telecommunications companies, insurers and other risk-bearing arrangements currently allocate RF-related liability? What could change if the scientific or regulatory position changes?
• If commercial liability policies exclude or potentially exclude RF/EMF-related health liability, how are telecommunications companies managing that risk?
• What, if anything, can be learned from the industry’s public response to the HHS RFI and FCC proceeding about how companies currently assess, transfer or retain RF/EMF-related health risks?

Corporate Risk Allocation: Who Ultimately Bears the Cost? 

What do companies disclose about their own insurance?

• Crown Castle’s 2025 Form 10-K states that if a connection between RF emissions and adverse health effects were established, its operations, costs or revenues could be materially and adversely affected. It also states: “We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.”
• Verizon’s current 2025 Form 10-K says that its wireless business is subject to lawsuits concerning alleged adverse health effects of wireless phones and RF transmitters. It says the company may incur significant expenses defending such lawsuits and may face significant damages or settlements. It also says changes in government agencies’ assessment of wireless-device risks could result in significant legal and regulatory liability and materially affect the company. Note that Verizon’s disclosure does not say that these liabilities are uninsured.

Manufacturer RF-Exposure Instructions

Smartphone manufacturers also provide users with specific RF-exposure instructions, including separation distances for body-worn use.

Google — current Pixel 10 regulatory guide

Google’s official safety and regulatory guide states that body-worn operation requires 1.0 cm (10 mm) separation for Pixel 10, Pixel 10 Pro and Pixel 10 Pro XL models in U.S. 1.6 W/kg SAR jurisdictions. It also states that body-worn accessories should not contain metallic components.

Samsung — official RF/SAR information

Samsung’s official information states that SAR certification establishes a minimum recommended distance from a person’s body for operation of RF-emitting devices, and specifies 15 mm for phones.

These manufacturer instructions are relevant to the broader liability question because they document specific conditions and separation distances associated with RF-emitting products, although they do not by themselves establish that ordinary use causes harm or give rise to liability.

RF-Related Litigation Can Create Long-Term Financial Exposure 

The more-than-two-decade Murray v. Motorola litigation illustrates how RF-related claims can generate prolonged litigation, expert proceedings, discovery and appeals. In a July 2025 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants following the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ expert testimony under Rule 702. Although Murray is not an insurance-coverage dispute, its lengthy history shows how RF-related claims can create potentially significant long-term litigation costs and financial exposure.

What Could Change if the Regulatory Position Changes?

• At least one wireless-infrastructure company publicly discloses that it does not maintain significant insurance with respect to potential RF-related health risks.
• A change in the regulatory or scientific environment could create additional compliance, operational or financial exposure. 
• RF-related public concerns can have consequences beyond litigation, including potential effects on deployment and market acceptance.

An RFI could potentially become relevant to insurance even if existing policies contain exclusions.

For example, scientific or regulatory developments could lead to:

• new insurance products;
• altered underwriting;
• changes in exclusions;
• disputes over existing wording;
• changes in corporate insurance purchasing;
• changes in captive/self-insurance arrangements; or
• increased attention to potential residual exposures.

We don’t know yet what the endpoint will be:

• an HHS advisory;
• new warnings;
• Wi-Fi restrictions in schools;
• recommendations to parents;
• stricter consumer-electronics labelling.

These are illustrative possibilities, not predictions or established endpoints. The outcome of the HHS review is not yet known.

The FCC and RF Exposure Limits: From 2013 to 2026

2013–2019: The FCC’s Review of RF Exposure Limits 

The history is significant. The FCC opened a science-based inquiry into the adequacy of its RF exposure limits in 2013 and stated that it would work closely with federal agencies with relevant health expertise. In 2019, the FCC concluded that the record did not provide an adequate basis for changing the limits and terminated the inquiry.

2021: The D.C. Circuit Remand

In 2021, however, the D.C. Circuit remanded the FCC’s decision. The court found that the FCC had failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its RF exposure limits were adequately protective against harmful effects of RF exposure unrelated to cancer. This failure undermined the FCC’s conclusions concerning the adequacy of its testing procedures, particularly as they related to children. It also affected the agency’s conclusions concerning long-term exposure, RF pulsation or modulation, and technological developments since 1996. In addition, the court found that the FCC had failed to respond adequately to comments concerning environmental harm from RF radiation. 

The court’s decision did not determine that RF exposure causes these effects, nor did it conclude that the FCC’s exposure limits were scientifically unsafe. Rather, it held that the FCC had not adequately explained its conclusions in response to the evidence and comments before it. The court also upheld the FCC’s explanation concerning cancer. The remand therefore focused on the agency’s treatment of potential harmful effects unrelated to cancer. 

2026: The FCC Reopens the Remand Issues

On 17 September 2026, the FCC issued a new Public Notice seeking comment on the RF exposure issues subject to the D.C. Circuit’s remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC. The proceeding concerns the issues that remained unresolved following the court’s 2021 decision.

The HHS RFI and the FCC proceeding are therefore related but distinct. HHS is seeking information on scientific evidence, exposure, health effects, research gaps and possible recommendations, while the FCC proceeding addresses the RF-exposure issues arising from its own regulatory proceeding and the D.C. Circuit’s remand.

What Does the HHS RFI Change? 

HHS can conduct health research, issue public-health information and make recommendations within its statutory authority. The FCC’s regulatory authority over RF exposure limits is a separate question.

The HHS RFI does not change federal RF exposure limits or impose new requirements on the telecommunications industry. It does, however, establish an official process for examining the scientific evidence, real-world exposure, existing standards, research gaps and potential health effects, including exposures below current federal limits. HHS states that the information received may inform future research, funding solicitations or policies. For a broader examination of the HHS RFI, the current U.S. process and France’s parallel call for new RF research, see Electromagnetic Fields and Radiofrequency Radiation: U.S. HHS Seeks Public Input; France Calls for New Research. 

Future Litigation: Could the Evidence Base Change?

The HHS RFI could become relevant to future litigation if it leads to new research, additional evidence or changes in the regulatory or scientific assessment of RF exposure. HHS is specifically seeking information on potential health effects, including effects associated with exposure below current federal limits, as well as research gaps and priorities for future federal research. 

Generating New Evidence

If the RFI contributes to new federally supported research or identifies important research gaps that are subsequently addressed, the resulting evidence could become relevant to future litigation. Whether particular studies would be admissible or persuasive would depend on the evidence itself and the applicable evidentiary rules.

Regulatory Changes Could Affect Future Preemption Arguments

Federal preemption has also been an important issue in RF-related litigation. Courts have, in some circumstances, held that federal RF regulations preempt state-law claims concerning devices that comply with FCC exposure requirements. The scope and basis of preemption, however, depend on the particular claims and applicable law.

If future federal action were to materially alter the applicable RF exposure standards or the regulatory framework underlying those decisions, parties in later litigation could potentially argue about what effect those changes have on existing preemption principles. That would be a legal question for the courts; a change in federal health policy would not automatically eliminate preemption defenses.

Industry Response Is Still Developing

As of 27 September 2026, we have not identified detailed public responses from major telecommunications or technology companies specifically addressing the HHS RFI. At the same time, the FCC’s September 2026 notice reflects the continuing importance of 5G, 6G and spectrum development within U.S. communications policy. HHS has invited industry stakeholders to provide evidence on exposure standards, wireless infrastructure, antenna density and small-cell deployment. The industry’s formal submissions to the RFI may therefore provide important insight into how the sector assesses the potential regulatory and liability implications of the review. 

Related EMFSA articles:

• July Environmental Health Update

Legal Disclaimer:

This article is provided for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, insurance, financial or professional advice. Insurance coverage depends on the wording, terms, conditions, exclusions and circumstances of the individual policy, as well as applicable law. References to court cases, insurance policies and corporate disclosures are provided for informational purposes and should not be taken as conclusions about the coverage or liability of any particular company or insurer. 

AI Disclosure:

AI tools helped prepare this article through language editing, formatting, editorial assistance and research-support tasks. The author reviewed the sources and factual claims, reviewed and approved the final article, and remains responsible for its accuracy, interpretation and presentation.

The post EMF/RF Insurance: Who Is Responsible? appeared first on EMFSA.

New Developments in Radiofrequency Radiation: HHS, FCC and ANSES

On September 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking evidence and information on electromagnetic fields (EMFs), radiofrequency (RF) radiation and wireless radiation exposure, particularly in relation to human health. The RFI is intended to help HHS evaluate the state of the science, compare U.S. and international safety standards and regulatory approaches, identify research gaps and inform future research and policy.

EMFSA | 20 September 2026

The RFI invites contributions from researchers, clinicians, public-health professionals, industry, advocacy groups and members of the public.

The Federal Register will publish the notice on September 21, 2026.

Comments must be submitted within 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

What is HHS asking?

The questions cover a wide range of issues, including reported health effects, exposure standards and risk assessment, methods for measuring real-world exposure, potentially sensitive populations, cumulative exposure from existing and emerging wireless technologies, and priorities for future research.

• What does the evidence show? HHS seeks evidence on potential adverse health effects associated with RF exposure. This includes exposure below current federal exposure limits. HHS also seeks evidence on possible environmental effects. The RFI asks how technologies such as 5G, 6G, Wi-Fi, satellite communications, IoT, wearables, smart homes and wireless medical devices may contribute to cumulative exposure.
• How to assess exposure? The RFI asks how researchers can characterise individual and population exposure and better reflect real-world conditions. It also asks which technical and exposure-related information manufacturers and other relevant parties should disclose to consumers, residents, workers, schools, healthcare providers and local governments.
• Are current standards and risk-assessment methods adequate? HHS asks respondents to identify relevant national and international exposure standards and to consider whether scientific, technical or regulatory changes could improve exposure assessment and regulation. It specifically raises characteristics such as frequency, power density, SAR, electric- and magnetic-field strength, modulation, pulse characteristics, duty cycle, beamforming, simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies, duration, distance, proximity to the body and cumulative exposure.
• Should researchers consider particular populations separately? The RFI asks whether exposure assessment or risk evaluation should differ for children, pregnant women, older adults, people with implanted medical devices, workers with elevated occupational exposure and people with pre-existing medical conditions.
• What should be studied next? HHS asks respondents to identify the highest-priority research gaps and how federal agencies, including the FDA, NIH and CDC, could improve coordination of RF/EMF research.

The RFI also invites individuals and families to share experiences they believe may be associated with RF/EMF exposure, including the source, duration and timing of exposure, reported effects, changes in exposure, and any supporting documentation.

HHS separately invites clinicians, researchers and public-health practitioners to describe observations that could help identify patterns for further study. 

More information about the HHS RFI 

HHS press release: HHS Seeks Public Input on Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Radiation

Federal Register notice (PDF): Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation, and Wireless Radiation Exposure

FCC context 

The HHS RFI does not specifically name the FCC in its questions about federal research coordination. The FCC, however, has separately opened a proceeding on RF-exposure issues related to the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 remand.

1. 2019: The FCC decided to retain its existing RF exposure limits rather than initiate a rulemaking to modify them.
2. 2021: The D.C. Circuit remanded the matter to the FCC, finding that the agency had not adequately explained its conclusions concerning several non-cancer health and environmental issues.
3. May 2026: petitioners filed a petition seeking to compel the FCC and FDA to comply with the 2021 remand.
4. August 26, 2026: the court ordered the FCC to respond to the petition, giving it 30 days to address the issues raised concerning compliance with the remand.
5. September 17, 2026: the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the RF exposure issues subject to the D.C. Circuit remand: FCC Public Notice DA 26-997 — RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand

What does the FCC want commenters to examine?

• whether studies are methodologically rigorous and directly relevant to the issues remanded by the court;
• whether findings have been replicated;
• whether studies provide longitudinal evidence of non-cancer health effects or environmental effects;
• whether epidemiological studies account for widespread and long-term cellphone use;
• whether proposed biological mechanisms or markers actually demonstrate adverse health effects;
• whether studies distinguish correlation from causation;
• whether literature reviews assess the weight of scientific evidence;
• whether researchers use properly calibrated instruments, accepted exposure-assessment methods and adequate dosimetry;
• whether studies establish dose-response relationships and substantiate adverse health effects in humans at exposure levels below FCC limits;
• whether studies adequately address confounding, controls, blinding, sample size and representativeness; and
• whether laboratory or animal findings can reasonably be related to real-world U.S. exposures and human health.

The HHS RFI and the FCC proceeding address different aspects of the ongoing U.S. discussion of RF exposure and health. France’s ANSES has also launched a separate initiative, focused specifically on funding new research.

ANSES 2026 Research Programme: Radiofrequencies and Health — Call for Proposals

Extract only — see the full call for proposals in the PDF below.

• Deadline for submitting letters of intent: 1 October 2026 at noon. 
• Deadline for submitting complete applications: 11 March 2027 at noon.

Who can apply: All research teams, including international partners.
Requirement: One French academic partner

Two research calls are planned for 2027:

“Radiofrequencies and health”, and a second call covering a wide range of environmental and occupational health topics, excluding radiofrequencies.

ANSES places strong emphasis on methodological quality, particularly because the research may contribute to future expert assessments. The agency also prioritises research that policymakers could apply relatively quickly.

Scope of the Radiofrequency Research Call

The call focuses on the effects of radiofrequencies in the range from 8.3 kHz to 300 GHz.

For projects on electromagnetic hypersensitivity, researchers may consider a broader frequency range extending to lower frequencies. The call permits this broader range where it may help researchers understand the phenomenon.
The effects of electromagnetic fields can be studied for these fields alone or in combination with a cofactor.

Besides signals associated with current exposure, the call invites researchers to study new sources of exposure and associated signals. These include connected objects, 5G and satellite technologies, wireless energy transfer, and the various modulations used for mobile communication.

ANNEX 1: Research Questions

• Research on mechanisms of action of radiofrequencies at the molecular and cellular levels
• Research into the physiological or health effects of radiofrequencies
• Electromagnetic hypersensitivity / idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields
• Characterisation of exposure

Source: National Research Programme for Environmental and Occupational Health “Radiofrequencies and Health” 2026 Call for Proposals — ANSES
https://www.anses.fr/sites/default/files/GB-Texte_APREST_2026-RF.pdf

Neither the HHS RFI nor the ANSES research call represents a finding that current RF exposure standards are inadequate or that wireless technologies have been shown to cause specific health effects. They do, however, demonstrate that questions concerning RF exposure, health, exposure assessment and emerging wireless technologies remain active areas of government-supported evidence gathering and research. 

Related EMFSA Newsletter

For additional background and recent developments, see our Wireless Health & Environmental Safety August 2026 – EMFSA newsletter.

AI Assistance

AI tools were used in the preparation of this article for language editing, formatting, editorial assistance and research-support tasks. The author provided the subject matter, source material and editorial direction, and reviewed the information and factual claims. The final article was reviewed and approved by the author, who remains responsible for its accuracy, interpretation and presentation.

Image: Generated with Lumo AI (Proton). 

The post Electromagnetic Fields and Radiofrequency Radiation: U.S. HHS Seeks Public Input; France Calls for New Research appeared first on EMFSA.

FDA Removes “Lack of Health Risk” Statement from Cell Phone Pages

The pages now focus on the FDA’s regulatory role with the FCC and its public scientific guidance. https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/home-business-and-entertainment-products/cell-phones

There is no public announcement yet that provides a research protocol, detailed aims, timelines, or responsible investigators.

At this stage, no detailed official documents or research plans have been made public. There is currently no information describing how the study will be conducted, including whether it will involve human observational research, laboratory experiments, animal models, or a combination of approaches. Specific health outcomes to be examined—such as cancer, neurological effects, or fertility—have not been identified, nor have any details been released about exposure levels, measurement methods, or control groups.

There has also been no announcement outlining a timeline for the study. Authorities have not indicated when data collection might begin, how long the research is expected to run, or when findings could be released.

In addition, aside from its general connection to recommendations from the MAHA Commission, there has been no public disclosure of funding levels, oversight mechanisms, scientific review boards, or collaborating institutions.

Such details are typically released later through official channels, including press statements from the Department of Health and Human Services, announcements from agencies such as the NIH or FDA, grant notices, publication of study protocols, or registration in research databases like ClinicalTrials.gov. As of now, none of these disclosures have occurred.

How WHO and IARC Review the Evidence.

WHO and IARC review scientific evidence in a thorough, step-by-step process, using systematic reviews and expert evaluations. They usually don’t wait for a single new study—like the upcoming U.S. health department study—before updating their conclusions or the official classification of cellphone radiation. Instead, they consider all available, peer-reviewed research up to a set cut-off date and make their assessments on schedule.

Further reading: Autism, Circadian Disruption and Pregnancy https://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/autism-circadian-disruption-and-pregnancy/

References

US health department to launch study on cellphone radiation https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-health-department-launch-study-cellphone-radiation-2026-01-15/

RFK Jr. tells USA TODAY 5G towers for cellphone use ‘a major health concern’ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/16/robert-kennedy-5g-electromagnetic-radiation/88220793007/

Is Cellphone Radiation the Next Big Health Question? Inside the U.S. Health Department’s New Inquiry https://earthtimes.org/is-cellphone-radiation-the-next-big-health-question-inside-the-u-s-health-departments-new-inquiry/

Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2025–2029 https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AGP_Report_2025-2029.pdf

*Photo by Victor Larracuente on Unsplash

The post Cellphone Radiation and Health Effects — New U.S. Study appeared first on EMFSA.