Chobani Sued Over Phthalates in “Natural” Yogurt

A class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California accuses Chobani LLC of deceiving consumers by marketing its Greek yogurt as containing “Only Natural Ingredients” while independent testing detected multiple types of phthalates, a category of synthetic plastic chemicals, inside the product. Plaintiff Amy Wysocki filed the complaint on April 16, 2025, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated U.S. consumers who purchased Chobani yogurt during the applicable statute of limitations period.

The case, Wysocki v. Chobani LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00907-JES-VET, is pending before U.S. District Judge James Simmons Jr. in San Diego. Chobani moved to dismiss the complaint in August 2025. The court indicated in that hearing it would dismiss the case in a formal order. No formal dismissal order was issued. Instead, Judge Simmons issued a ruling on April 6, 2026, allowing the majority of the case to proceed.

Chobani Yogurt Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

December 2024 — PlasticList Publishes Testing Results

An independent research organization called PlasticList contracted with an ISO/IEC 17025-accredited laboratory to test everyday food products for plastic chemical contamination. The testing involved analytical chemists and epidemiologists to ensure accuracy.

PlasticList tested two Chobani products: Nonfat Plain Greek Yogurt and Whole Milk Plain Greek Yogurt. Both tested positive for multiple phthalate compounds. The compounds detected included di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), and di-2-ethylhexyl terephthalate (DEHT).

PlasticList published its findings on December 27, 2024, with an update on December 31, 2024. The report was publicly available and quickly attracted legal attention from consumer protection firms.

January 2025 — Demand Letter Sent to Chobani

On January 21, 2025, attorneys from Bursor & Fisher, P.A., based in Walnut Creek, California, sent Chobani a demand letter via certified mail. The letter advised Chobani that its product labeling violated California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The letter demanded Chobani cease its misrepresentations and make full restitution to affected consumers. Chobani did not remedy the issues raised. That failure to respond set the stage for litigation.

April 16, 2025 — Class Action Filed in Southern District of California

Amy Wysocki filed the class action complaint in the Southern District of California on April 16, 2025. Wysocki, a California resident, stated she purchased Chobani Nonfat Plain Greek Yogurt from a retail store in San Marcos, California, in 2023.

She relied on the front-label and lid representation that the product contained “Only Natural Ingredients.” She alleged she would not have purchased the product, or would not have paid the same price, had she known it contained synthetic phthalate chemicals. The complaint named five legal theories: violations of California’s CLRA, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, plus breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.

August 2025 — Chobani Moves to Dismiss; Court Signals Possible Dismissal

Chobani filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In a hearing held in August 2025, the court indicated it would dismiss the case in a formal order. Chobani issued a public statement asserting the allegations “lack merit” and that its products contain “only natural ingredients.”

No formal written order followed the hearing. The case remained active on the court docket. Multiple fact-check outlets, including Snopes, reported on the lawsuit and Chobani’s statement during this period.

April 6, 2026 — Judge Simmons Denies Most of Chobani’s Motion to Dismiss

U.S. District Judge James Simmons Jr. issued a written opinion on April 6, 2026, preserving the bulk of Wysocki’s claims. The ruling was a significant setback for Chobani.

Simmons allowed Wysocki’s false advertising claims regarding trace levels of four phthalate compounds to proceed. He ruled her allegations were sufficient to establish standing. He also found her claims met the heightened fraud pleading standard, noting the specific detail of her 2023 San Marcos purchase and the labeling she relied on.

Chobani argued that testing from 2024 could not retroactively prove the 2023 yogurt she purchased contained phthalates. Simmons rejected that argument. The complaint alleged Chobani used the same No. 5 polypropylene plastic containers throughout that period, and phthalates are commonly used in the polymerization of polypropylene. That connection, Simmons found, was sufficient at the pleading stage.

Simmons dismissed the claims premised on dibutyl phthalate (DBP) because the complaint did not allege PlasticList’s testing detected DBP. He granted Wysocki until May 6, 2026, to file an amended complaint addressing that gap and the dismissed equitable claims under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA, where the court found she had not sufficiently distinguished her need for restitution and injunctive relief from the damages she already sought. The breach of express warranty claim survived entirely.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The lawsuit centers on a single, damaging claim: that Chobani’s “Only Natural Ingredients” representation is false because its plastic containers leach synthetic phthalate chemicals into the yogurt.

Chobani’s containers are made from No. 5 polypropylene plastic. Phthalates are commonly used as catalysts in the polymerization of propylene into polypropylene. The complaint argues Chobani knew, or should have known, that its plastic supplier used phthalates, and that those chemicals migrate from packaging into food.

The FDA classifies DEHP as a probable human carcinogen. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry describes DEHP as “highly toxic” and an endocrine disruptor. Studies cited in the complaint link DEHP exposure to insulin resistance, pregnancy loss, preterm birth, and reproductive harm. DBP appears on California’s Proposition 65 list as a reproductive toxin. DEP breaks down inside the body into chemicals associated with sperm and developmental harm.

Chobani’s packaging does not disclose the presence of these chemicals. The lawsuit argues that consumers who see “Only Natural Ingredients” reasonably expect the product is free of synthetic plastic compounds. Research cited in the complaint found that 52 percent of consumers assume a product contains chemicals when the word “natural” does not appear on the packaging. The inverse effect, the suit argues, is that the label misleads consumers into paying a premium for a product they believe is cleaner than it is.

Who Qualifies to File a Claim

The proposed class covers all U.S. consumers who purchased Chobani yogurt products during the applicable statute of limitations period. A California subclass covers California residents specifically, given the state law claims under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL.

Class certification has not been granted. That step typically takes 12 to 24 months after filing in federal consumer cases. Until certification is granted, no formal claims process exists for affected consumers. Purchasers should monitor the court docket at Case No. 3:25-cv-00907-JES-VET on PACER for updates on certification and any eventual settlement.

The complaint does not limit coverage to a specific yogurt variety. It covers Chobani’s Nonfat Plain Greek Yogurt, Whole Milk Plain Greek Yogurt, and substantially similar products using the same plastic containers with the same “Only Natural Ingredients” labeling.

Scientific Evidence and Health Concerns

Phthalates are synthetic chemicals designed to make plastics more flexible and durable. They do not bond permanently to plastic. They leach readily into surrounding materials, including food. The complaint draws on peer-reviewed research and government agency analyses to establish the health risk.

DEHP has been studied extensively. A toxicological profile from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry links DEHP exposure to hepatic, renal, immunological, reproductive, and developmental harm. The EPA has listed DEHP as a probable human carcinogen. California’s Proposition 65 list includes DEHP for its capacity to cause cancer and birth defects.

A 2021 study published in Healthcare (Basel) by Wang et al. found that phthalates disrupt the endocrine system through mechanisms that do not follow the traditional dose-response curve. Low-dose effects may actually be more harmful than high-dose exposures in certain biological systems. This is the paradigm the lawsuit cites to argue that even trace levels in food are not safe to dismiss.

DEHT, while considered a less potent phthalate substitute, is a structural isomer of DEHP. Research on its long-term human health effects remains limited. The complaint flags it as a concern given its structural similarity to a known endocrine disruptor.

FDA Position and Regulatory Context

The FDA currently permits nine types of phthalates for use in food contact materials. Phthalates are not permitted as direct food additives, but their presence in packaging is not banned. No regulatory agency has formally confirmed that Chobani’s products contain phthalates at unsafe levels.

That regulatory gap sits at the heart of this lawsuit. Chobani argues that FDA-permitted packaging cannot give rise to false advertising liability. Judge Simmons rejected that argument at the pleading stage. He noted the claims are not about whether the packaging was legal, but whether the “Only Natural Ingredients” label is accurate when the product contains synthetic chemicals the packaging introduces.

Chobani also invoked California’s Proposition 65, arguing Wysocki was trying to impose a stricter standard than the state’s own warning label law. Simmons was unpersuaded. Wysocki’s claims, he found, were not limited to cancer and reproductive toxicity. She also alleged endocrine disruption, developmental harm, immunological harm, and renal harm. Those concerns fall outside Prop 65’s scope, leaving her claims viable.

Chobani’s Response

Chobani has consistently denied the allegations. In a public statement, a company spokesperson said the allegations “lack merit” and that Chobani’s products “include only natural ingredients.” The company pointed to the August 2025 hearing as confirmation the case would be dismissed.

That prediction did not hold. Chobani’s motion to dismiss failed on the core false advertising, warranty, and standing issues. The company now faces discovery, potential class certification proceedings, and the possibility of trial or settlement.

Chobani has not announced any changes to its packaging, labeling, or testing protocols in response to the lawsuit. No recall has been issued. No regulatory agency has directed Chobani to modify its products.

The Broader Chobani Litigation Picture

The phthalates case is not the only lawsuit Chobani currently faces over its “natural” and “no sugar” marketing claims. Two other active cases target different product lines.

In the Albrigo case, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York denied Chobani’s motion to dismiss on July 11, 2025. That case challenges Chobani’s “Zero Sugar” and “Only Natural Ingredients” claims on products containing processed stevia and monk fruit extracts. Judge Benjamin J. Cheeks found the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the 11-step manufacturing process required to produce stevia extract renders it synthetic, not natural.

A separate Zero Sugar lawsuit was dismissed on May 29, 2025, when Judge Tharp ruled that FDA guidance allowing allulose to be excluded from sugar totals preempts state law false advertising claims. That case is closed.

The pattern is notable. Chobani has built a premium brand on “natural” messaging. Multiple courts have now allowed plaintiffs to challenge that messaging at the pleading stage. The company faces a sustained legal argument that its marketing overpromises what its products actually deliver.

Plaintiffs following the Chobani phthalates lawsuit may also want to track the Prime Energy drink lawsuit, where similar allegations of undisclosed toxic chemicals in a consumer product are playing out in parallel litigation. The Poppi soda false advertising lawsuit reached an $8.9 million settlement over gut health claims the company could not substantiate, offering a comparable example of how “natural” and “functional” food marketing faces legal accountability. The MaryRuth Organics lawsuit raised similar questions about contaminated products sold under health-focused branding, and the Costco rotisserie chicken lawsuit demonstrates how food companies face liability when known contamination risks are not disclosed to consumers.

What Happens Next

With Chobani’s motion to dismiss largely denied, the case moves into the discovery phase. Wysocki’s legal team at Bursor & Fisher will seek internal Chobani documents related to its plastic container sourcing, supplier purity testing, and any internal analysis of phthalate contamination risk.

The most critical next step is class certification. If Wysocki can demonstrate that common questions of law and fact predominate across the proposed class, the court may certify tens of thousands of consumers as class members. That certification would significantly increase Chobani’s exposure and settlement leverage for plaintiffs.

No trial date has been set. No settlement has been announced. Consumers who want to monitor the case can access the full docket through PACER using Case No. 3:25-cv-00907-JES-VET in the Southern District of California.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

Chobani built its brand on the idea that yogurt could be simple, honest, and free of industrial chemistry. “Only Natural Ingredients” is not just a marketing phrase. It is a warranty. Consumers read those four words and make purchasing decisions based on them.

What PlasticList’s testing revealed is that the chemical story of a food product does not end with its ingredient list. Packaging matters. The container a product travels in can introduce substances no consumer would knowingly choose to eat. Phthalates do not appear in Chobani’s ingredients because Chobani does not add them. But when they leach from the plastic into the yogurt, they become part of what the consumer swallows.

Regulators have been slow to close this gap. The FDA permits phthalates in food contact materials while acknowledging concerns about their endocrine-disrupting properties. That regulatory permission does not resolve the false advertising question. A product can be packaged legally and still be labeled misleadingly.

The broader lesson is about transparency. Consumers deserve to know not just what brands add to their food, but what the production and packaging chain introduces. The “natural” label has become one of the most commercially powerful claims in food marketing. When it is used to imply freedom from all synthetic chemicals, the packaging it comes in becomes part of the promise. Chobani is now facing the legal consequences of that gap between its marketing and its material reality.