Kerrygold Pure Irish Butter Lawsuit: PFAS Packaging and Grass-Fed Claims

Carolyn Winans, a New York resident, filed Winans v. Ornua Foods North America Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01198, on February 14, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Ornua Foods North America is the U.S. arm of Kerrygold's parent company. The proposed class covered people who bought Kerrygold Salted and Unsalted Butter Sticks for personal, family, or household use.

The complaint said the butter sticks are prominently labeled "PURE IRISH BUTTER" when the products contain PFAS, a group of synthetic chemicals that it said are, by definition, artificial. The theory was that PFAS in the foil packaging could migrate into the butter, so calling it "pure" misled shoppers. The claims were brought under New York's consumer protection laws, including General Business Law sections 349 and 350, along with claims for selling misbranded food, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment.

The case came after Kerrygold butter was temporarily pulled from some shelves in 2023 ahead of New York and California laws banning intentionally added PFAS in food packaging. Ornua said the claims lacked merit.

The complaint also said Ornua knew the importance of its label claims and that, if PFAS got into the products through packaging, the company should have disclosed it. It argued that competing butters were free of PFAS and that buyers therefore overpaid for Kerrygold. Ornua denied the claims throughout the case, and no court ever found that Kerrygold butter contained PFAS.

Ornua moved to dismiss. In 2024, the court refused to dismiss the allegation that a PFAS chemical previously found in the packaging could have migrated into the butter, and the case moved toward discovery.

Then, on August 14, 2024, U.S. District Judge Frederic Block dismissed the case with prejudice after the plaintiff and Ornua filed a joint stipulation, with each side bearing its own costs. The court papers did not mention a settlement, and none was made public. A dismissal with prejudice ends the named plaintiff's own claims for good. Because no class was ever certified, other buyers were not bound and kept whatever rights they had, although no one has refiled a similar case that we could find.

For why cases often end this way, see what happens when a class action ends early and when class members are bound.

A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require the court to review the terms, because no class claims are being settled. That is different from a class settlement, which needs court approval, notice to class members, and a fairness hearing. The absence of those steps is how you can tell that no Kerrygold buyer outside the case received anything.

Since August 2024, we have found no refiled Kerrygold PFAS case.

In July 2018, buyers sued Ornua Foods North America and Ornua Co-operative Limited in Myers-Taylor v. Ornua Foods North America, Inc., No. 18-cv-1538 in the Southern District of California. They claimed Kerrygold butter was advertised as made with milk from "grass-fed" cows to suggest it was healthier, while the cows were also fed grain, soy, corn, and genetically modified grains. In November 2018 they amended to add claims that the "natural" marketing was misleading because of the genetically modified feed.

In February 2019, a federal judge dismissed the case, concluding that reasonable consumers would not read "grass-fed cows" to mean cows fed only grass, and that the plaintiffs had not offered a plausible definition of "natural." The plaintiffs had until March 6, 2019 to amend but instead voluntarily dismissed the case in March 2019.

The grass-fed ruling is often cited in food cases because it draws a line many courts follow: a true statement that is incomplete is not automatically misleading. The label said the milk came from grass-fed cows; according to the court, it did not claim "100% grass-fed." A plaintiff arguing that shoppers read "grass-fed" as "only grass-fed" needs evidence of that understanding, such as consumer surveys, and the complaint did not persuade the court at the pleading stage. Products that do claim "100% grass-fed" face a stricter test, because the words themselves promise more.

The Winans complaint went further than a typical refund case. Besides restitution, actual damages, and statutory damages, it asked the court to order Ornua to fund a blood serum testing program so class members could check for PFAS in their blood, and a medical monitoring program to watch for health effects associated with PFAS exposure. The complaint cited CDC-described health effects of PFAS exposure, including cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, and increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease.

Requests like medical monitoring are unusual in food labeling cases and hard to win, because they require showing a significant exposure and a real increased risk. The case never reached that question. It also sought to show that competing butters were free of PFAS, arguing that buyers paid a premium for Kerrygold that they would not have paid had they known.

For context on how PFAS claims fare in other products, see PFAS in consumer products and the Smucker pet food PFAS case, where a court certified a class in January 2026 over PFAS in packaging. The class certification ruling in that case shows a PFAS packaging claim can get further than the Kerrygold case did.

If you are concerned about PFAS

PFAS are found in many products and in some drinking water, so butter packaging is a small part of the picture for most people. If you want to reduce exposure, state health departments and the EPA publish general guidance, including on testing your water. None of that affects any legal claim, and no Kerrygold-specific claim is open today.

There is no class to join and no claim form. If a new case were filed, it would likely target specific label statements and purchase periods. Buyers who kept receipts would be best positioned. If you see a website offering to file a "Kerrygold settlement" claim, it is not an official settlement site; see how to spot settlement scams.

If you still have Kerrygold receipts from 2019 to 2023, there is no harm in keeping them, but there is no current process that would pay you for them.

A new case would also need a new plaintiff with fresh evidence, such as testing of current packaging.

Both Kerrygold cases sought refunds or the premium buyers paid for "pure," "natural," or "grass-fed" butter, not compensation for illness. Kerrygold costs more than many store brands, so a successful case could have paid a portion of that difference per package. Because both cases ended without a class settlement, the amount paid to ordinary Kerrygold buyers was $0. For how refund settlements are usually structured, see how class action money is divided.

For comparison, food label settlements that do reach approval commonly pay a fixed amount per unit with proof and a small capped amount without proof. The fairlife settlement, for example, paid up to $20 without proof and $80 with proof in 2022. A Kerrygold settlement, had one happened, might have followed a similar model, but that is speculation, and none was reached.

Food label cases turn on the reasonable consumer test: would an ordinary shopper be misled by the words on the package? Courts have treated general words like "pure" and "natural" differently depending on the context. In the grass-fed case, the court read the claim literally and found no promise of an all-grass diet. In the PFAS case, the court allowed the plaintiff to try to prove that trace chemicals from packaging made "pure" misleading.

PFAS rules have changed since then. New York and California laws banning PFAS in food packaging prompted Kerrygold's temporary pause in 2023, and state packaging rules now shape these claims. Every state also sets a statute of limitations for consumer claims, and it varies by state and by claim. For more on these chemicals, see PFAS in consumer products.

Two legal tools decided the Kerrygold cases. The grass-fed case ended on a motion to dismiss, where the judge accepts the complaint's facts as true and asks only whether they state a legal claim. The PFAS case got past that stage in 2024, which meant the plaintiff would have had to prove through testing and expert evidence that PFAS actually reached the butter. Getting past a motion to dismiss is only the first of several stages, and the Kerrygold PFAS case ended on August 14, 2024, within months of the 2024 ruling that let it proceed, before any testing evidence was presented in court.

No Kerrygold settlement, claim form, or payment exists as of September 2026.

1. Keep receipts if you buy premium butter regularly; they are the best proof if a new case is filed.
2. Be skeptical of claims that a Kerrygold settlement is paying out. None exists.
3. If you are concerned about PFAS exposure, follow guidance from your state health department and the FDA.

If you believe you have a different claim involving a food label, independent attorneys can look at it. A free case review takes about two minutes. Related: fairlife milk and Chobani yogurt.

How the free case review works: you answer a few questions about what you bought, when, and why you are concerned. It is free and there is no obligation. If your situation fits the cases independent attorneys are pursuing, one may contact you. Since no Kerrygold settlement exists, there is nothing to file, and anyone offering to file a Kerrygold claim for a fee should be avoided.