Rare Suit Between Cookware Makers Centers on PFAS Toxicity Claim

The makers of popular cookware brands All-Clad and Farberware have launched an unusual legal fight against a rival whose products don’t contain “forever chemicals,” alleging the company’s ads falsely paint the presence of PFAS in its competitors’ products as toxic.

Groupe SEB USA Inc., which produces All-Clad Metalcrafters among other brands, and Meyer Corp., whose brands include Circulon, Farberware, Rachael Ray, and KitchenAid, filed their complaint against Caraway Home Inc. in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in February. The case is moving towards a jury trial, but first the court must decide on Caraway’s motion to dismiss the litigation and the plaintiffs’ opposition.

Many consumer-driven lawsuits have accused companies of falsely promoting the safety of products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of thousands of substances dubbed “forever chemicals,” because some can linger for years in the environment and people’s bodies where they’re associated with cancer, among other health problems.

Groupe SEB’s and Meyer’s lawsuit is one of the few, possibly the first, in which companies are suing a competitor over its PFAS claims.

“There’s no other lawsuit like this in the PFAS realm,” said John Gardella, co-owner of CMBG3 Law PC, who chairs the firm’s PFAS practice group.

The lawsuit hinges on whether Caraway’s advertisements are false or misleading, Gardella said. To answer that, the jury will have to weigh in on current science dealing with a chemical SEB, Meyer, and other companies commonly use to prevent food sticking on pans and baking sheets: polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or Teflon, he said.

Other cookware makers and companies facing allegations that their products harm consumers or contain PFAS are likely to be interested in the case, said Preetha Chakrabarti, a partner with Crowell & Moring LLP and member of its Intellectual Property Department and Advertising & Brand Protection group.

‘Fundamentally Safe Chemical’

SEB’s and Meyer’s complaint asserts that instead of competing fairly, “Caraway plants, and preys on, consumer fears based on problems associated with some PFAS chemicals.”

For example, “Caraway falsely labels its competitors’ PTFE-coated products as ‘Toxic Cookware’ that will ‘fill the air in your home with harmful, toxic fumes and forever chemicals that you ingest, such as PFAS and PTFE,’” the complaint said.

“Plaintiffs’ PTFE-coated products have seen their sales plummet,” since Caraway began falsely depicting traditional nonstick cookware as dangerous, the complaint said.

Yet “PTFE is a fundamentally safe chemical,” the complaint said. It’s one chemical among thousands encompassed by the PFAS acronym and, despite sharing some common features, the chemicals have dramatic differences.

SEB and Meyer point to safety evidence including the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization of polymeric PFAS such as PTFE. The large molecules tightly bind to cookware so negligible amounts of PFAS migrate to food, FDA’s website says.

Distinguishing divergent PFAS and pointing to the safety of some makes the case notable, said Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC, which specializes in chemical policies.

Too often there’s been a “one-size-fits-all approach to characterizing the functionality and toxicity of this diverse class of substances,” she said. Having parties stand up and defend particular chemicals in that class is laudable and somewhat unique, Bergeson said.

Previous Challenge

An important factor leading to the litigation was recommendations the National Advertising Division, or NAD, made to Caraway last year, said Carmine Zarlenga, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP, who represents SEB and Meyer. The advertising industry founded NAD to provide independent self-regulation that reviews advertising claims’ accuracy to promote fair competition.

The Cookware Sustainability Alliance, which SEB and Meyer belong to, challenged Caraway’s ads under NAD’s review process, according to materials submitted with the complaint.

After reviewing evidence each side presented, NAD urged Caraway to stop making toxicity claims about cookware made with PFAS and PTFE and avoid assertions that its products were safer compared with other cookware.

Caraway, however, has a reasonable basis to make advertising claims promoting its cookware as free of PFAS and nontoxic, NAD said. Caraway had made a good faith effort to comply with NAD’s recommendations, the division said in a compliance report last December.

The outcome of NAD’s review was a huge win for Caraway, because the laboratory tests the company regularly conducts proved it had evidence to back its claims that its products are nontoxic, said Jordan Nathan, the company’s founder and CEO. Pulling other ads, which never called out brand name companies, but focused on PFAS, wasn’t a big deal, he said in an interview.

SEB and Meyer dispute Caraway’s compliance with NAD’s recommendations. Caraway voluntarily participated in NAD’s review process, agreed to follow the recommendations, and failed to fully do so, Zarlenga said. The case will test how much weight courts give to a company’s acceptance of NAD’s review process, but its non-compliance with the outcome, he said.

More Lawsuits Ahead

Nathan, however, sees the lawsuit as part of an effort to “take down a small company that’s on a mission to create the next generation of non-toxic homes and adopt innovation.”

“I think you’ll start seeing more of these larger incumbents, who are trying to prevent progress, using litigation as a strategy,” as other companies design PFAS-free products to satisfy customer demands and comply with state regulations banning PFAS-containing products, he said.

State requirements that companies report PFAS in their products or label such wares, as is the case in New Mexico, also signal more litigation ahead, said Crowell & Moring’s Chakrabarti.

Companies need to comply with those rules and be prepared internally with evidence supporting labels placed on their products, she said. Any claims that a product creates a health and safety benefit or allegation that a competitor’s products harm health and safety could be targeted for scrutiny, Chakrabarti said.

“Be extremely careful, mindful of how claims are formulated and made with regard to your product, whether it’s a consumer product or an industrial commercial product,” Bergeson said.

The case is Groupe SEB USA Inc. et al v. Caraway Home Inc., S.D.N.Y., No. 26-cv-01237, Complaint Filed, 2/13/26.