KEY TAKEAWAYS

What Is the Group SEB v. Caraway Case?

On February 13, 2026, a lawsuit was filed in New York’s federal court that has thus far received very little media attention, yet deserves a closer look, as it represents the first instance of a company filing what amounts to a greenwashing claim against a rival company in the context of PFAS. In Group SEB v. Caraway, plaintiffs, manufacturers of cookware products, concede that their products use a type of PFAS – in this instance, PTFE – for nonstick properties. Plaintiffs allege that Caraway manufactures cookware that does not contain PTFE, but goes too far in advertising and touting its PTFE or PFAS free products by allegedly taking direct aim at products that contain PTFE in a false and misleading manner to consumers. The marketing statements point to Caraway’s competition, which is descried as toxic, harmful, and otherwise capable of releasing damaging fumes, As a result of this marketing campaign, the SEB Group alleges that they have lost an immense market share that they once held, resulting in significant damages.

What Unique Issues Are Involved In This Greenwashing Case?

Plaintiffs concede that their products utilize PTFE and they stand their ground by staunchly defending the use by citing to scientific support that concludes that PTFE (1) cannot be released from cookware unless  the cookware is heated to such a temperature that no consumer would ever do and (2) that even if ingested or otherwise absorbed by the consumer, the levels of PTFE released from the plaintiffs’ products is safe for humans. The concession that a product contains PFAS is extremely rare in today’s climate surrounding PFAS issues.

Further, this is the first instance in which one company has sued a competitor for what amounts to a PFAS greenwashing claim. Typically, PFAS greenwashing lawsuits are brought by citizens against companies. Here, the plaintiffs primarily bring claims under the Lanham Act, the federal statute that permits civil litigation claims for unfair competition and false advertising. Plaintiffs bring similar claims under relevant New York statutes, as well as in common law.

Why Is This Case Important For Companies To Follow?

The case demonstrates why companies with PFAS concerns or footprints in the consumer goods market must not just evaluate and perform risk assessments with respect to alleged greenwashing of consumers, but also competition. Companies routinely promote their products as better in some manner than their competition, but how far can a company push the limits of marketing statements before the line into civil litigation is crossed? There is no black and white answer to this – the answer is dependent on numerous factors, such as wording of the statements made, competitors’ appetite for litigation, and whether a court would view the statements as “mere puffery” (statements that no reasonable consumer would believe were true) as opposed to misleading statements.

Further, the case will necessarily need to address the core question of whether PTFE is safe for humans. With plaintiffs touting PTFE as safe for cookware and defendants claiming the opposite, the Court will need to address this issue head on to determine whether there were misleading statements and, if so, the egregiousness of those statements.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Why is the SEB Group v. Caraway case so important to follow?

A. The Court will need to address whether PTFE is safe to consumers when used on cookware products in order to determine whether any false or misleading marketing statements were made. This issue has not been directly addressed by courts to date aside from early stages of litigation where courts are simply looking to whether plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts for the lawsuit to proceed.

Q. Is this the only example of PFAS greenwashing litigation?

A. No. PFAS greenwashing litigation in the United States has existed for years; however, the cases have always been brought by citizens against companies. This is the first lawsuit filed that was brought by a corporation against another corporation in the PFAS greenwashing context.

Q. Does the case teach companies anything about how far to go in marketing?

A. The case is instructive in showing companies the risks presented by, in this instance, taking direct aim at competitors in marketing statements. While this is not the first example of a company suing a company for misleading statements, it is the first instance of this in the PFAS context. A multi-faceted approach within companies is a must when evaluating marketing campaigns. Relying only on the marketing professionals to create and then launch a marketing campaign without input from legal, operational, or compliance professionals puts a company at risk for lawsuits such as this one.