Nerds and Ferrara Candy Arsenic Lawsuit: Status and Heavy Metals in Candy

Under its Healthy Florida First initiative, the Florida Department of Health announced candy test results on January 26, 2026. The department said it tested 46 candy products from 10 companies for heavy metals and detected arsenic in 28 of them. The results followed Florida's earlier testing of infant formula.

State officials framed the risk in terms of yearly consumption. First Lady Casey DeSantis said consuming more than 96 Nerds in a year would exceed what the state considers a safe annual arsenic exposure for children, a small fraction of a typical box. Other candies named in coverage of the results included SweeTarts, Jolly Ranchers, Twizzlers, and Swedish Fish.

The National Confectioners Association rejected the findings, calling the state's testing "misguided" and saying Florida's "screening benchmarks" do not match federal standards or peer-reviewed science. The FDA has not issued a recall or warning for these candies, and Florida's results have not been tested in court.

Florida's results got attention because of vivid comparisons, like the 96 Nerds figure. Understanding how those numbers were built helps put them in context.

• Detection is not the same as danger. Florida said arsenic was detected in 28 of 46 products. Detection means a lab found a measurable amount; whether that amount matters depends on how much someone eats and over what period.
• The limits were yearly, not per piece. State officials said the concern was repeated consumption over a year, not a single piece on a single day, and expressed results as how much candy a child could eat in a year before exceeding the state's screening level.
• The benchmarks were Florida's. The state used its own health-based screening benchmarks. The National Confectioners Association said those benchmarks do not match federal standards or peer-reviewed science, and there is no FDA limit for arsenic in candy.
• Many brands were named. Besides Ferrara products, coverage of the results listed candies such as Jolly Ranchers, Twizzlers, and Swedish Fish, which are made by other companies. We did not find class actions against those makers based on the Florida tests.

According to WUSF's report, a typical box of Nerds can contain 2,000 or more pieces and a movie-theater box roughly 8,000, which is why the 96-piece figure sounded alarming. Whether that comparison reflects real risk is exactly what the industry disputes.

For parents, the practical steps are the same as for any treat: moderation, and a conversation with a pediatrician if you have specific concerns. For a comparison with how regulators handle metals in children's food, see the FDA's lead limits discussed on our baby food page.

Anstett v. Ferrara Candy Company, No. 1:26-cv-01304, was filed as a proposed nationwide class action on February 4, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and assigned to Judge Manish S. Shah. Ferrara makes Nerds, SweeTarts, Laffy Taffy, and Trolli gummies. The complaint attached Florida's test results and claimed that 8 of 10 Ferrara candy varieties tested positive for toxic arsenic levels and that Ferrara failed to warn buyers.

Ferrara waived service on February 28, 2026, with an answer due April 29, 2026. Instead, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on March 10, 2026, and the court dismissed the case without prejudice the same day. The docket does not explain why, and there was no settlement with the class. Ferrara was never required to respond to the claims, and none was proven.

A dismissal without prejudice means the same claims can be brought again. It also means class members are not bound by anything; see what happens when a class action ends early.

The complaint, brought by Christina Anstett, listed Florida's candy test results as its main exhibit. It asked the court to certify a nationwide class of buyers, and it cited Florida consumer protection law, among other claims. The case never reached the point where Ferrara filed a response, so there is no court ruling on whether the Florida testing is reliable or whether the labels were misleading.

Heavy metal claims against sweets are not new, and results have been poor for plaintiffs so far.

Dark chocolate after the Consumer Reports tests

In December 2022, Consumer Reports tested 28 dark chocolate bars and reported that 23 exceeded its levels of concern for lead or cadmium if eaten at one ounce a day. Class actions followed against several chocolate makers and sellers, including Trader Joe's.

Trader Joe's

In 2025, a federal judge granted Trader Joe's summary judgment, finding it "did not have exclusive knowledge" that its dark chocolate contained or risked containing heavy metals. The ruling reflects a common hurdle: when the presence of metals is publicly known, a failure-to-disclose claim is hard to win.

For comparison with other food contamination cases, see heavy metals in baby food and the Costco protein powder case.

The chocolate cases also show how the timing of public information matters. Once Consumer Reports published its December 2022 results, and similar findings circulated widely, courts became more receptive to the argument that shoppers could have known about metals in dark chocolate. That reasoning helped Trader Joe's win. A plaintiff suing over candy after Florida's January 2026 announcement could face a similar argument for purchases made after the results were public.

Chocolate and candy also raise different science. Cacao can absorb cadmium from soil, and lead can be introduced after harvest, according to research Consumer Reports described, while Florida's candy results focused on arsenic. Each type of claim needs its own evidence about where the metal comes from and whether the company knew.

Right now, no candy heavy metal class exists for you to join. If a new case is filed, likely class members would be people who bought the specific candies named in the complaint within the class period, usually limited to certain states.

• You would not need a health injury for a refund claim.
• You would need to have bought the product, ideally with some record of it.
• Personal injury claims would require a diagnosis and medical evidence linking it to the candy, which is much harder to prove.

For how grouped cases work, see types of class action lawsuits.

If a new Ferrara case is filed, the Anstett complaint gives a preview of its likely shape: a proposed nationwide class of candy buyers, claims under state consumer protection laws such as Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and reliance on Florida's test results. Because Anstett was dismissed without prejudice, those same claims can be refiled by the same plaintiff or someone else. Parents would not have to prove any child was harmed to be part of such a refund class.

No candy heavy metal case has produced a settlement, so there is no payout history. Candy is inexpensive, so refund settlements in food cases usually pay a few dollars per household without receipts. As of September 2026, $0 had been paid to candy buyers in any heavy metal class action we could verify. Be skeptical of websites that describe a "Nerds settlement"; none exists.

Personal injury claims over candy would be valued very differently, based on a diagnosis, medical costs, and proof of causation, and no such claim has succeeded that we could find. For comparison, the far larger baby food autism litigation lost its key causation experts in February 2026, which shows how hard it is to link dietary heavy metals to specific health conditions in court.

Refund math in these cases is simple in principle: the court or the parties estimate how much of the price was due to the challenged claim, then pay that share back to buyers who file.

There is no federal limit specifically for arsenic in candy. The FDA addresses metals in food through guidance and its Closer to Zero program, which has so far focused on foods for babies and young children. Consumer cases therefore rely on state laws against deceptive practices and failure to disclose, and they must show that the company knew or should have disclosed the risk and that a reasonable buyer would care.

California's Proposition 65 can require warnings for lead and arsenic, and its private enforcement process is a separate path from class actions. Deadlines for state consumer claims vary; the statute of limitations in many states runs several years from purchase, and filing a class action generally pauses it for proposed members while the case is pending.

Failure-to-disclose claims are hard in food cases because many state laws require that the company had knowledge the buyer lacked. The Trader Joe's ruling turned on that point: the court found the company "did not have exclusive knowledge" that its dark chocolate contained or risked containing heavy metals. Candy plaintiffs would have to show that Ferrara or other makers knew about arsenic levels that shoppers could not have known, which is a high bar once state test results are public.

No candy heavy metal settlement or claim form exists as of September 2026.

1. Keep receipts and packaging for candies you buy regularly, in case a new case is filed.
2. If you are worried about a child's exposure, talk with a pediatrician about testing rather than relying on online estimates.
3. Do not pay anyone to "join" a candy lawsuit. None is pending.

If you believe a child was harmed and want to know whether any claim is possible, independent attorneys can look at it. A free case review takes about two minutes. Related: lead in protein powder and supplements.

How the free case review works: you answer a few questions about the candy, how often it was eaten, and any health concerns. It is free and carries no obligation. If your situation fits cases independent attorneys are handling, one may contact you. No candy settlement exists today, so anyone asking you to pay to file a claim is not legitimate.