PFAS Lawsuits Over Food and Products: Driscoll's, Apple Watch Bands, Kombucha, POM

PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are thousands of synthetic chemicals built around strong carbon-fluorine bonds. They resist grease, water, and stains, and they break down very slowly, which is why they are called "forever chemicals." Most PFAS injury litigation involves contaminated drinking water or firefighting foam. The cases on this page are different: they are consumer class actions saying companies sold products containing PFAS without telling buyers, so buyers overpaid.

Apple Watch Sport Bands

Cavalier v. Apple Inc., No. 5:25-cv-00713 in the Northern District of California, alleges that Apple's fluoroelastomer Sport Bands, sold for about a decade, contain hazardous amounts of perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA). The plaintiffs link PFHxA to kidney and liver damage and developmental and reproductive toxicity. Apple denies the claims.

POM Wonderful pomegranate juice

Hernandez v. The Wonderful Company LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01242 in the Southern District of New York, alleges POM 100% Pomegranate Juice contains PFAS despite being marketed as "All Natural" and "100% Pomegranate Juice."

Health-Ade kombucha

Morton v. Health-Ade LLC, No. 7:24-cv-00173 in the Southern District of New York, filed January 9, 2024, claimed certain Health-Ade kombucha flavors marketed as healthy, natural, and organic contained PFAS, under New York General Business Law.

Driscoll's strawberries

Two 2026 suits claim Driscoll's conventional strawberries carry pesticide residues the plaintiffs call PFAS. See our full Driscoll's strawberries lawsuit page.

Why do so many PFAS cases target food and wearables now? Two things changed. Independent testing became cheaper and more widely publicized, often by advocacy sites and plaintiffs' firms. And states began restricting PFAS in some consumer goods, which plaintiffs cite to argue that buyers care whether a product contains them. The result is a steady stream of new filings, most of which follow the same template: a lab result, a label claim like natural or safe, and a demand for refunds on behalf of everyone who bought the product.

In the Apple case, the court denied Apple's motion to dismiss the claims for fraudulent concealment and omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, while dismissing fraudulent misrepresentation and implied warranty claims with leave to amend. The ruling allows the plaintiffs to keep pursuing a nationwide class.

In the POM case, the court first dismissed the complaint because no named plaintiff alleged PFAS in the juice he or she bought. The plaintiffs then added a buyer whose own juice was tested using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), which found 0.192 parts per trillion of PFOA. On November 25, 2024, the court largely denied the second motion to dismiss, letting New York consumer protection and negligence per se claims go forward and dismissing an unjust enrichment claim and The Wonderful Company as a defendant. We could not confirm later rulings.

In the kombucha case, the parties told the court on September 5, 2024 that they had resolved it, and the next day the judge discontinued the case with prejudice. No class settlement or claim process was created.

The Apple complaint's theory is worth understanding because it is a model for other wearables. The plaintiffs say Apple has sold fluoroelastomer Sport Bands for roughly a decade, that the bands contain PFHxA, and that a band worn against the skin all day is a meaningful exposure route. They link PFHxA to kidney and liver damage, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and disruption of lipid metabolism. The court's March 2026 ruling found the plaintiffs had adequately alleged standing and fraudulent concealment. That does not mean the bands are unsafe; it means the case can move to discovery, where both sides will test those allegations.

PFAS consumer cases have a rough track record, and the reasons are consistent enough to predict which new cases have a chance.

• Testing the wrong thing. Courts dismiss complaints that rely on tests of other people's products. The POM case survived only after a plaintiff tested his own juice.
• Screening instead of measuring. Total organic fluorine tests measure fluorine generally, not specific PFAS. A court dismissed PFAS claims against o.b. and Playtex tampons in January 2024 in part because the plaintiffs relied on that kind of proxy.
• Vague results. The Costco baby wipes case was dismissed at first, then survived once the complaint named three specific PFAS and their amounts.

The POM plaintiff's juice tested at 0.192 parts per trillion of PFOA, a tiny amount, yet the case survived because the testing was specific and tied to his own purchase. At the pleading stage, courts ask whether a claim is plausible, not whether the amount is dangerous. Whether small amounts matter to reasonable buyers is a fight for later.

A few PFAS product cases have paid out. The Thinx period underwear case settled in 2023 with a fund of up to $5 million. For more on tampon claims, see our tampon lead lawsuit page.

In each pending case, the proposed class is buyers of a specific product during a class period, sometimes limited to certain states:

• Apple Watch Sport Bands: buyers of the fluoroelastomer bands, with the plaintiffs seeking a nationwide class.
• POM juice: New York buyers, based on New York consumer law claims.
• Driscoll's: California buyers in one case; Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts buyers in the other.
• Kirkland wipes: see our baby wipes lawsuit page.

No PFAS product class has been certified in these cases as of September 2026. You do not need to sign up. If a class is certified or a settlement is reached, notice will explain how to file and your right to opt out.

A caution about sign-up pages. Many sites invite you to "join" a PFAS lawsuit by entering your details. That form is usually a law firm or lead generation intake, not a court filing. You are automatically part of a proposed class if you fit its definition, and you only need to act when a court-approved notice tells you to file a claim, opt out, or object. If you want an individual case evaluated, for example because of a serious illness tied to water or workplace exposure, a lawyer can review it, but no one should charge you a fee to be included in a class.

PFAS consumer settlements are refund settlements, and they are modest. In the Thinx settlement, claimants with proof of purchase received $7 per item for up to three items, from a fund with a $4 million cash minimum and up to $5 million in total. That is the realistic range to expect if the Apple, POM, or Driscoll's cases settle: dollars per product, more with receipts.

If you have a serious illness you connect to PFAS, the relevant cases are usually about contaminated drinking water or firefighting foam, not consumer products. See our pages on PFAS water contamination and AFFF firefighting foam, where individual injury claims are handled.

In the Health-Ade kombucha case, the only resolution was a private settlement with the named plaintiff; class members received nothing and kept their right to sue. That is common when a defendant settles early: the named plaintiff's individual claim is resolved, and the class claims are simply dropped. If you see a news story saying a PFAS case "settled," check whether a court approved a class settlement with a claim website before assuming you can collect.

Watch the claim deadline on any approved settlement, since late claims are usually rejected.

These cases rely on state consumer protection laws: New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and similar statutes in other states. The theory is omission or misrepresentation: the product was sold as natural, safe, or pure, and the seller did not disclose PFAS.

The regulatory backdrop is thin. There is no enforceable federal limit for PFAS in food or most consumer products; the widely cited 4 parts per trillion federal limit for PFOA and PFOS applies to drinking water. Some states have passed laws restricting intentionally added PFAS in certain product categories, which plaintiffs cite to show that PFAS content matters to consumers.

Limitations periods for these claims depend on the state and the statute. The California Unfair Competition Law, for example, allows four years, which is why many complaints define classes reaching back about four years.

Negligence per se, one of the POM claims that survived, is a doctrine that treats a violation of a safety statute as evidence of negligence. There, the plaintiffs argued the juice was adulterated under federal and New York food laws. Whether a trace amount of PFOA makes juice adulterated is a question the court did not have to answer at the pleading stage.

1. Save proof. Apple order history, grocery receipts, and loyalty accounts make any future claim easier.
2. Keep the product if it is non-perishable, like a Sport Band.
3. Do not pay for testing sold as a way to join a lawsuit; you do not need your own test to be part of a proposed class.
4. Watch for official notices, and file only on a court-approved settlement website.

If you want to know whether you fit a pending PFAS case, or you have a health concern tied to PFAS in water or at work, independent attorneys who handle these cases can look at it. A free case review takes about two minutes.