Something’s Brewing: PFAS Class Actions Reach Food, Beverage and Alcohol Companies

The playbook is consistent. A plaintiff buys a product, sends it to a lab and files suit when the lab reports PFAS, usually measured against Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking-water benchmarks because no food-specific standard exists. Some of these suits have been dismissed quickly, and some have survived. The difference usually comes down to how carefully the testing is pleaded and whether it connects to what the plaintiff actually bought.

From the Wrapper to the Pint: Where PFAS Consumer Suits Stand
Our firm flagged the first wave of beverage suits in 2023. The decisions since then have given the defense bar a clearer map.

Juice and Sports Drinks: Standing Is the First Hurdle
Beverage cases have been the proving ground for PFAS consumer claims, and the threshold question has been Article III standing. Courts want to know whether the plaintiff’s own drink plausibly contained PFAS, not just a sample someone else tested. Where the plaintiff closed that gap, the claims moved forward. Where the plaintiff did not, they ended quickly.

• No link, no standing. Lurenz v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 22 CV 10941 (NSR), 2025 WL 2773188 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2025). The plaintiff alleged that Simply Tropical juice labeled “all natural” contained PFAS, based on his own testing. The court dismissed with prejudice for lack of Article III standing because the plaintiff did not plausibly link the tested samples to the juice he bought or allege that PFAS contamination was widespread and uniform across the product line.
• Test the plaintiff’s own bottle, and the case survives. Hernandez v. Wonderful Co., No. 23-CV-1242 (ER), 2024 WL 4882180 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2024). After an earlier standing dismissal, plaintiffs added a named plaintiff whose own purchased POM pomegranate juice tested positive for PFAS. The court then held that the New York consumer protection claims could proceed, finding that a reasonable consumer could read “all natural” and “100% pomegranate juice” to mean no detectable PFAS. The defendants did not challenge the testing method, and the court did not address it.
• Standing is not the end of the story. Castillo v. Prime Hydration LLC, 748 F. Supp. 3d 757 (N.D. Cal. 2024). The plaintiff alleged that independent testing found PFAS in a sports drink above an EPA advisory level. The court found standing on that basis but held that the drink’s “refresh, replenish, refuel” statements were too vague to mislead, leaving only an implied warranty claim. In September 2025, the court granted judgment on the pleadings on that claim as well, after Prime argued that it rested on an interim EPA drinking-water advisory.

Butter and Pet Food: Packaging Claims Can Stick
Food cases have focused less on what is in the product and more on what it is wrapped in. Here, plaintiffs have had more success, in part because state packaging bans and recalls give them a ready-made hook and published migration studies supply the link from package to product.

• Migration is plausible. Winans v. Ornua Foods N. Am. Inc., 731 F. Supp. 3d 422 (E.D.N.Y. 2024). After Kerrygold butter was recalled under a New York ban on PFAS in food packaging, the plaintiff alleged that PFAS migrated from the wrapper into the “Pure Irish Butter.” Citing studies showing that migration was possible, the court held the theory plausible, found standing and let most claims proceed. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in August 2024.
• Packaging claims can reach class certification. Jeruchim v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. 22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.). The plaintiffs challenge pet food sold in packaging alleged to contain PFAS. The court rejected the argument that PFAS in packaging, rather than in the food, was too speculative to cause a concrete injury, and certified a class.

Beer: Latest Target for PFAS Litigation
Alcohol had largely escaped PFAS consumer litigation. That changed this month. On November 2, 2026, a consumer filed Talbot v. The Lagunitas Brewing Co., No. 3:26-cv-12965 (N.D. Cal.). This is a putative nationwide class action alleging that the brewer failed to disclose that its beer contains PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid) at levels above EPA drinking-water limits.

Unlike the beverage cases above, the complaint does not challenge a label statement. It is a pure omission case, resting on plaintiff-commissioned testing of IPA purchased in Oregon and Wisconsin with an adaptation of EPA drinking-water Method 533. It also relies on an April 2025 peer-reviewed study (aptly titled “Hold My Beer”) that found PFAS in most beers tested and tied it to the municipal water used in brewing. The claims are brought under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), implied warranty and unjust enrichment. Because the study ties PFAS to local water supplies, the theory could reach any brewer, winery or distiller drawing on affected water.

The Regulatory Backdrop: Plenty of Rules, None Written for Food
One reason these cases keep coming is a regulatory gap. Federal and state regulators are active on PFAS, but almost none of that activity sets a limit for what is in food or drink. That leaves plaintiffs to borrow standards from other contexts, and leaves defendants with arguments about why those standards do not fit.

Federal: No Food Standard, Shifting Water Standards
There is no federal PFAS tolerance for food, beverages or alcohol. In June 2026, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied a citizen petition seeking PFAS tolerances or action levels for foods, concluding the evidence did not support them. FDA’s Total Diet Study has found no detectable PFAS in 95% of foods tested.

Plaintiffs therefore benchmark against EPA’s 2024 Safe Drinking Water Act standards (4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid). Those standards are a moving target. On May 20, 2026, EPA proposed to extend compliance deadlines and rescind the standards for four other PFAS, including PFNA, while keeping the PFOA and PFOS limits, as our PFAS team reported in Proposed EPA Amendments to the NPDWR Mark a Significant Shift .

Alcoholic beverages add a second federal layer. FDA has authority over alcoholic beverages as food under the adulteration provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) regulates labeling and advertising of wine, distilled spirits and malt beverages under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. TTB’s position is that beverages FDA finds adulterated are also mislabeled under the FAA Act, but no agency has made any such finding for PFAS. Most malt beverage labels require TTB label approval, and beverages at or above 0.5% alcohol carry the federal health warning required by the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act. These regimes may support arguments specific to alcohol, including limits on state-required health statements, primary jurisdiction and the significance of label approval.

State: Moving Faster Than Washington
States are not waiting for federal regulators. Maine, Minnesota and New Mexico have adopted reporting requirements and phased sales restrictions for products with intentionally added PFAS. As we reported last month, a federal court on September 16, 2026 preliminarily enjoined New Mexico’s first-in-the-nation PFAS product-labeling rule on First Amendment grounds. The court left the sales bans and the January 1, 2027, reporting deadline in place, and New Mexico has appealed.

Several states, including New York, ban PFAS in food packaging, which is what prompted the Kerrygold recall in Winans. California’s Proposition 65 list includes PFOA and PFNA, creating warning-notice exposure for products sold in California.

Put to the Test: Scheibe and the Rise of “Independent Testing” Suits
PFAS suits are one strand of a broader trend across food and beverage litigation: false advertising claims built on one or a few plaintiff-commissioned lab tests. The same playbook has been used for nutrient content, “natural” claims, phthalates and now PFAS. In the Ninth Circuit, three decisions frame the current landscape, and together they tell a story about how much testing detail a complaint needs to survive.

• One good test can be enough... Scheibe v. ProSupps USA, LLC, 141 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2025). A single sample of a “zero” carbohydrate and calorie supplement, tested by an independent lab using FDA-approved methods, showed carbohydrates and calories many times above the zero-label threshold. The Ninth Circuit held that this supported a reasonable inference that FDA-compliant composite testing would show misbranding, which was enough to avoid FDCA preemption at the pleading stage. The court relied on two facts: the lab used FDA-recognized methods, and the margin was wide. Where a federal method governs, claims proven only through methods FDA has not validated remain preempted.
• ... But blogger’s report is not. James v. Primal Nutrition, LLC, No. 1:25-CV-00691-SAB, 2025 WL 3228135 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025). The plaintiff alleged that avocado oil marketed as “Pure” contained phthalates, relying on a blogger’s report of third-party testing. The court dismissed with leave to amend under Rules 8 and 9(b) because it was “not clear how the testing was conducted, who performed the testing, or what specific results were obtained.” It distinguished Scheibe on the ground that the Scheibe plaintiff used FDA-recognized methods.
• Add an expert, and the case can come back. Smith v. Safeway, Inc., No. 24-CV-07918-AMO (N.D. Cal.). In August 2025, the court dismissed claims that “100% Avocado Oil” was adulterated with other oils because the single testing allegation did not say what tests were run, which bottles were tested, when, or with what results (2025 WL 2778327). The amended complaint described the lab’s fatty acid analysis of multiple samples and attached a food scientist’s declaration interpreting the results against Codex standards. On March 9, 2026, the court denied dismissal, holding that the declaration pushed the claims “from possible to plausible.” It also held that the plaintiff could infer his own bottle was adulterated from tests of other bottles.

The lesson is that a bare “independent testing revealed” allegation is unlikely to survive. A complaint that names the lab, date, method and results, and especially one backed by an expert declaration, will often clear the pleading stage. The defense focus is therefore shifting to whether the method fits the product, whether the result is meaningful against any applicable standard, and whether the tested units are linked to the plaintiff’s purchases.

What’s on Tap: Practical Steps and Defenses
The best time to prepare for a PFAS demand letter is before it arrives. A few practical steps can put companies in a stronger position if a plaintiff’s lab results surface.

• Map water sources and municipal PFAS data, and document filtration and treatment (for example, reverse osmosis and activated carbon).
• Consider privileged testing through counsel, using defensible, validated methods.
• Review “natural,” “pure,” “clean” and water-source marketing claims and assess packaging and food-contact materials.
• Track state PFAS reporting, packaging and labeling obligations (including Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico and New York) and California Proposition 65 exposure.
• Prepare a response protocol for CLRA notice letters, Prop 65 notices and press inquiries.

If a suit is filed, companies have real defenses. Which ones apply will depend on the regulatory scheme for the product and on how the complaint pleads its testing, but they include:

• Article III standing. Whether the plaintiff plausibly bought an affected product.
• Preemption. Where federal law sets the standard and the method.
• Plausibility and Rule 9(b). Whether the testing allegations are detailed and reliable enough.
• Omission and duty to disclose. Particularly for pure omission theories that rely on borrowed drinking-water benchmarks to show a safety hazard.

Pillsbury’s consumer class action, food and beverage, alcohol beverage regulatory and PFAS teams work together to help clients assess testing risk, respond to demand letters and defend these suits. If you have questions, please contact the authors or the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work.