Driscoll's Strawberries Lawsuit: PFAS Pesticide Claims and Recall Rumors

Both suits say Driscoll's markets its berries with statements like "Only the Finest Berries" and promises of rigorous food safety and sustainable growing, while not disclosing that its conventional strawberries carry residues of pesticides the plaintiffs describe as PFAS, or "forever pesticides."

The Berlinger plaintiffs are six shoppers from four states suing under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and Massachusetts Chapter 93A. The Washington case, first filed in Santa Cruz County Superior Court, relies on California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Environmental Marketing Claims Act, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Driscoll's asked the court to treat the two cases as related; as of early September 2026 they remained before different judges.

These are allegations. Driscoll's has said they are "without merit."

The marketing statements quoted in the complaints are ordinary brand language: "Only the Finest Berries," "freshest, safest, [and] most flavorful berries," "grown, harvested and shipped with the highest standards of care possible," and "naturally grown." The plaintiffs' argument is that these statements, along with Driscoll's sustainability messaging, created a premium reputation that would not survive disclosure of PFAS-labeled pesticide residues. The Washington complaint leans on California's Environmental Marketing Claims Act, which targets misleading environmental claims, and describes Driscoll's campaign as greenwashing. Both complaints ask for a jury trial. Neither alleges that anyone got sick, and the plaintiffs do not appear to have tested their own berries; according to reporting on the filings, they learned of the residues from news and social media posts.

No. As of September 2026, the FDA, EPA, and USDA have not issued a recall, safety alert, or market withdrawal for Driscoll's strawberries related to these pesticide claims. Social media posts calling this a recall are mixing up a lawsuit with a government action.

A recall is a safety action by a company or regulator to remove a product from the market. A class action is a private lawsuit seeking money for buyers. One can exist without the other. See recall vs. class action for the difference, and our food recall lawsuits page for cases tied to actual recalls.

Driscoll's has said it and its independent growers operate in full compliance with U.S. federal, state, and local pesticide and food safety regulations, including oversight by the EPA and California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Driscoll's has also pointed to its compliance programs. The company told the Daily Mail, as reported by Fruitnet, that all Driscoll's growers undergo third-party audits by independent auditors, and that its production is subject to frequent oversight by the EPA and California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. Driscoll's had publicly responded to the testing report by May 19, 2026, weeks before either lawsuit was filed. None of that decides the lawsuits, but it frames the defense: the company's position is that its berries meet every U.S. rule, and that the case is about foreign standards and a contested definition of PFAS.

If either case survives and a class is certified or a settlement is reached, the likely class would be people who bought Driscoll's conventional strawberries in the covered states during a defined class period. Based on the complaints:

• Berlinger: buyers in Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
• Washington: buyers in California.

Buyers in other states are not in either proposed class as filed. Organic strawberry buyers are not included. Nobody needs to sign up now; you would receive notice if a class is certified or a settlement is reached. See how to join a class action.

A class definition will also have to deal with the practical reality of produce. Many shoppers buy strawberries without a receipt that names the brand, and store loyalty records may list only "strawberries." If the cases ever reach a settlement, the claim process would likely rely on sworn statements for small no-proof claims, as many food settlements do. The Berlinger complaint names six plaintiffs from four states, while the Washington complaint has a single California plaintiff.

PFAS consumer class actions have a mixed to poor record, usually because plaintiffs could not show that the specific product they bought was tested. A few examples:

• A suit over PFAS in Health-Ade kombucha was privately settled and dismissed in September 2024, with no class payout.
• A claim over PFAS in Apple Watch Sport Bands survived most of Apple's motion to dismiss on March 16, 2026, so wins are possible.
• The Thinx period underwear case settled for up to $5 million in 2023.

Reporting on the Driscoll's filings notes that none of the named plaintiffs had their own strawberries tested, which is the same weakness that sank many earlier PFAS cases. For the broader picture, see our PFAS in products lawsuits page.

Other outcomes reported in coverage of the Driscoll's filings follow the same pattern: a Simply Orange juice PFAS case against Coca-Cola dismissed with prejudice in September 2025, a Tampax PFAS case dismissed with prejudice in July 2025 and appealed, and a Kerrygold butter case voluntarily dropped in August 2024 after surviving dismissal. The common thread is proof tied to the plaintiff's own purchase.

If the Driscoll's cases succeed or settle, expect a refund-style payment, likely a small amount per purchase, with more for people who can document purchases. Produce is rarely tracked by receipt, which is why these settlements often allow a limited no-proof claim. In the closest comparable settlement, Thinx, claimants with proof received $7 per item for up to three items.

No personal injury claim is being made in these cases, and there is no evidence in the complaints that anyone was harmed.

It is also possible that neither case pays anything. Based on the track record of PFAS consumer suits, defendants often win early by arguing that plaintiffs did not test the products they bought, or that trace residues within legal limits would not mislead a reasonable shopper. Several comparable cases ended with dismissal or with the named plaintiff dropping the claim. The two Driscoll's cases are at the very start: the defense's first major motion will show which way they are heading.

If a settlement ever happens, it will be announced through a court-approved notice and website.

The residue numbers in both complaints come from one source: a May 2026 post by Mamavation, a consumer health site, which sent two boxes of Driscoll's strawberries bought in Southern California to a lab on May 4, 2026 for screening against more than 500 pesticides. The organic box showed no pesticide residues. Neither complaint alleges that any residue exceeded a U.S. EPA pesticide tolerance; the comparisons are to limits in the European Union, Taiwan, Chile, Korea, and Russia, and the complaints themselves say those foreign limits are not alleged as legal duties in the U.S.

From the conventional box, eight residues are labeled "PFAS-laden pesticides":

Four more residues are listed without a PFAS label: cyprodinil (125 ppb), pyrimethanil (310 ppb), quinoxyfen (45 ppb), and tetrahydrophthalimide (302 ppb). That is 12 residues in total, and the highest single reading, pyrimethanil at 310 ppb, is one the complaints do not call PFAS.

According to reporting that reviewed both complaints, the lab is described only as an EPA-certified laboratory, the method is not disclosed, and the results were reviewed by an outside scientist.

This is likely to be the central legal fight. PFAS are a large family of synthetic chemicals built on carbon-fluorine bonds that resist breaking down, which is why they are called "forever chemicals." But there is no single binding federal definition.

• The complaints use a broad definition that treats fluorine in a molecule's structure as enough, which sweeps in many modern pesticides.
• EPA's working definition, set by its Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics in 2023, requires two adjacent fully fluorinated carbons, which excludes compounds with a single fluorinated carbon.
• Some states, including Maine, Minnesota, and California, define PFAS in their statutes as any chemical with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom, which is broader.

Food is also regulated differently from water. There is no enforceable federal PFAS limit for food. Pesticide residues on produce are governed by tolerances that EPA sets and FDA enforces, and a food that exceeds a tolerance is legally adulterated. Again, neither Driscoll's complaint alleges a tolerance was exceeded. The widely quoted 4 parts per trillion limit for PFOA and PFOS is a drinking water standard and does not apply to strawberries.

So even if a court accepts that fluorinated pesticides can be called PFAS, the plaintiffs must still convince it that a reasonable shopper was misled by marketing about quality and sustainability. That is a consumer protection question, not a safety finding.

1. Keep grocery receipts or loyalty records for strawberry purchases if you live in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts.
2. Wash produce under running water; this is general food safety advice and does not remove all residues.
3. If pesticide residue concerns you, organic strawberries tested non-detect in the same report.
4. Ignore posts claiming a recall or a payout; neither exists.

If you want to know whether you fit either proposed class or have other questions about a food product claim, independent attorneys who handle consumer cases can look at it. A free case review takes about two minutes.