Why broad consumer-product claims may carry environmental implications that labeling laws cannot fully address
A lawsuit involving strawberries may seem like an unlikely place to find the next development in the already well established PFAS litigation. But a July 2026 putative class action against Driscoll’s highlights a broader issue that consumer product companies face which is that general representations about a product’s quality can take on new meaning as consumers become increasingly aware of emerging environmental hazards such as PFAS.
A complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Driscoll’s marketed its strawberries using broad representations including “only the finest berries.” However, following independent testing that allegedly detected PFAS in its product, plaintiffs characterized those representations as greenwashing. What makes the case noteworthy is not the alleged presence of PFAS, but the evident disconnect between what a company says about a product in broad terms and how consumers may interpret those same statements.
The Limits of “No Intentionally Added PFAS”
One response to the growing regulatory focus on PFAS has been the implementation of precise terminology, including “no intentionally added PFAS.” That language serves an important regulatory purpose and a handful of states including Maine, Minnesota, California, and New Mexico have either fully adopted or are in the process of establishing laws addressing intentionally added PFAS.
Although the laws vary, they all distinguish between PFAS deliberately introduced into a product and PFAS that may be merely present due to other reasons. The distinction reflects the realities and challenges of modern supply chains. PFAS can enter products through raw materials, recycled content, packaging, processing equipment, or environmental contamination. Increasingly sensitive analytical methods can also detect PFAS at extremely low concentrations. A product therefore can contain detectable PFAS without a manufacturer intentionally adding PFAS to the product. For purposes of a statute or regulation, that distinction may be critical, but it does not necessarily coincide with what a consumer believes about the product.
When Broad Product Claims Meet Emerging Environmental Hazards
As shown in the Driscoll’s case, consumer products are routinely marketed using representations that are not tied to a particular chemical or regulatory standard. For example, products may be described as “clean,” “natural,” “environmentally friendly,” or simply as being of superior quality. Standing alone, those statements may not say anything about PFAS. But when consumers become increasingly aware that PFAS is associated with environmental and health concerns, plaintiffs may attempt to connect those broad representations to the presence of PFAS .
The legal theory can resemble greenwashing, but it presents a broader problem than traditional environmental marketing claims. The alleged misrepresentation may arise not because a company made a false statement about PFAS, but because the company’s overall marketing allegedly created an expectation about the product that the presence of PFAS undermines. That distinction is important.
The Implications for Consumer-Product Companies
The issue extends well beyond strawberries. Cosmetics, personal care products, food packaging, apparel, cookware, children’s products, and other consumer goods increasingly face PFAS restrictions and heightened scrutiny concerning environmental and health-related claims.
Companies in these industries should therefore consider PFAS not only when determining what they can legally put on a label, but also when evaluating what their overall marketing communicates about the product. Among other things, companies should consider whether consumers could reasonably understand broad product representations to encompass the absence of particular contaminants and whether a plaintiff could characterize the overall marketing as misleading even if a PFAS-specific statement is technically accurate. That may require coordination among legal, regulatory, marketing, quality and supply-chain teams.
Looking Ahead
PFAS labeling laws can establish what companies must disclose, but those requirements cannot necessarily determine what consumers believe a product’s broader representations mean. That distinction may become a common basis for consumer-product litigation.
For consumer-product companies, the lesson is straightforward: “no intentionally added PFAS” may be an important regulatory statement, but it may not be a complete defense to a broader claim about what consumers were led to believe about the product. As PFAS regulations become more precise, companies may need to be equally precise in evaluating the broader messages their products send.
For assistance with PFAS, consumer-product claims, greenwashing risks, or related litigation, please contact CMBG³ Law. Our team advises companies on evolving regulatory requirements and policy developments and helps them assess and manage related compliance and litigation risks.
