HexClad Lawsuit | $2.5M PFAS Settlement Reached

Consumers across the United States sued One Source to Market, LLC, doing business as HexClad Cookware, Inc., alleging the company falsely marketed its premium hybrid cookware as “PFAS Free,” “PFOA Free,” and “non-toxic” while the products allegedly contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of synthetic chemicals linked to serious health risks. The plaintiffs argued that HexClad’s marketing deceived reasonable consumers who paid premium prices based on those safety representations.

The case, captioned Cliburn v. One Source to Market, LLC d/b/a HexClad Cookware, Inc. (Case No. 23STCV28390), was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. It settled for $2.5 million. The Honorable David S. Cunningham, III granted final approval on March 9, 2026. Payments are now being distributed to valid claimants. The claim window closed November 14, 2025. Consumers who missed the deadline cannot file retroactively, but the Cash App class action lawsuit settlement and similar consumer protection cases remain instructive for anyone tracking similar product safety litigation.

Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

November 2023 — Lawsuit Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court

On November 17, 2023, lead plaintiffs Mandy Cliburn and Matthew Cliburn filed the original complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. The case was assigned Case No. 23STCV28390.

The complaint targeted One Source to Market, LLC, the company operating under the HexClad Cookware trade name. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

The core allegation was direct: HexClad marketed its cookware as “PFAS Free,” “PFOA Free,” and “non-toxic,” but the products allegedly contained polytetrafluoroethylene, a fluoropolymer within the PFAS chemical family. Consumers paid premium prices based on those representations.

Early 2024 — Class Expanded, Additional Plaintiffs Join

The litigation grew as additional plaintiffs joined the action, including Randi Gurka, Dana Swoyer, Lori Cimonetti, Khushbu Didwania, Pratikkumar Patel, and Benjamin Adams. Together, eight named class representatives pursued claims on behalf of all U.S. consumers who purchased eligible HexClad products.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended filing strengthened the false advertising allegations and argued that HexClad’s PTFE-containing nonstick coating meant the company could not legitimately claim its products were free from PFAS or PFOA.

April 22, 2025 — Court Grants Preliminary Approval

The Los Angeles Superior Court issued a preliminary approval order on April 22, 2025. The court conditionally certified the settlement class and approved the proposed $2.5 million settlement fund for notice and claims administration purposes.

Verita Global, LLC was appointed as the Court-approved Claims Administrator. The official settlement website, HexCladSettlement.com, went live to allow class members to verify eligibility and submit claims.

August 5, 2025 — Opt-Out and Objection Deadline Passes

Class members who wanted to preserve their right to sue HexClad individually were required to opt out by August 5, 2025. Those who did not opt out by this deadline are bound by the settlement terms and have released their individual claims against HexClad for the conduct covered by the case.

The opt-out window is not a formality. It is the one mechanism that allows a class member to step outside the collective resolution and pursue their own lawsuit. That window is now permanently closed.

September and February 2025-2026 — Fairness Hearings Held

The court conducted three fairness hearings before the Honorable David S. Cunningham, III in Department 11 at the Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. The hearings occurred on September 15, 2025, February 10, 2026, and February 20, 2026.

Fairness hearings give the court the opportunity to examine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for the class as a whole. The court considers the strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risks of continued litigation, and the terms of the proposed resolution.

November 14, 2025 — Claim Filing Deadline Closes

Valid claims had to be submitted to Verita Global by November 14, 2025. Approximately 209,712 timely claims were received. That number significantly diluted the per-claimant payout.

The net settlement fund available for class members, after attorneys’ fees, administrative expenses, and service awards, was approximately $1.25 million. Divided across over 200,000 valid claims, individual payouts were estimated at roughly $6 per claimant, well below early estimates of $25 or more.

March 9, 2026 — Final Approval Granted

Judge Cunningham signed the Order Granting Final Approval of the class action settlement on March 9, 2026. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate for the certified class. Payment distribution to valid claimants began following final approval.

The court approved attorneys’ fees of 33 and one-third percent of the gross fund ($833,333), reimbursement of attorneys’ expenses ($84,837), service awards of $2,500 for each of the eight named class representatives ($20,000 total), and administration costs to Verita Global capped at $312,000.

May 2026 — Payments in Distribution

As of May 2026, Verita Global is distributing payments to valid claimants. Payments arrive either as digital transfers or paper checks, depending on the method selected on the claim form. Digital payments typically arrive faster. Paper checks take longer.

Claimants with questions about their specific claim status can contact Verita Global at (866) 507-0323 or visit HexCladSettlement.com. A non-appearance hearing on final distribution is scheduled for February 23, 2027.

What the Lawsuit Alleged

HexClad built its brand on a promise. The company marketed its cookware as hybrid technology, combining stainless steel durability with nonstick convenience. Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay endorsed the brand. Premium pricing reinforced the premium positioning. Pans retailed from $100 to $400 per unit, and sets ran higher.

The marketing carried specific chemical safety claims. HexClad labeled products as “PFAS Free,” “PFOA Free,” and “non-toxic.” It also marketed cookware as “metal utensil safe.” Plaintiffs argued those representations were materially false.

The problem is in the chemistry. HexClad’s nonstick coating contains polytetrafluoroethylene, commonly known as PTFE and marketed under the brand name Teflon by DuPont. PTFE is a fluoropolymer. Per the amended complaint, PTFE is itself a member of the broader PFAS family of synthetic compounds. Labeling a PTFE-coated pan as “PFAS Free” was, plaintiffs contended, chemically inaccurate.

The plaintiffs did not allege that HexClad caused physical injury. What they sought to recover was the economic harm of paying premium prices for cookware they would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, had they known the true chemical composition. That distinction matters. This was a consumer protection and false advertising case, not a personal injury case.

The Science Behind the Claims

PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The class includes more than 14,000 identified synthetic compounds. Scientists and regulators call them “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally in the environment or in the human body.

According to research published by the Ecology Center, 79 percent of tested nonstick cooking pans were coated with PTFE, and PTFE-based pan coatings can release PFAS into the environment throughout their lifespan. Research published in peer-reviewed literature has linked PFAS exposure to liver disease, increased cholesterol, impaired immune response, thyroid disease, lowered fertility, and elevated cancer risk. Studies of workers and communities near PFOA-producing facilities found increased risks of testicular cancer and kidney cancer.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified PFOA as “carcinogenic to humans” in Group 1, based on sufficient evidence in laboratory animals and strong mechanistic evidence in humans. PFOA is a specific PFAS compound that was widely used in manufacturing PTFE until it was phased out in the United States by 2015. The question at the center of the HexClad litigation was whether residual PFAS compounds and PTFE itself posed risks that HexClad’s “non-toxic” and “PFAS Free” labels improperly concealed.

Research from the University of North Carolina estimated that PFAS found in U.S. drinking water and cookware may contribute to thousands of additional cancer cases annually. When a nonstick coating degrades at high heat, above 260 degrees Celsius, it can release perfluorinated compounds into the air. Scratched or damaged coatings accelerate that process. HexClad’s “metal utensil safe” claim was directly relevant here: if the coating could be damaged by metal utensils, the chemical release risk increased.

Who Qualified for the Settlement

The certified settlement class was nationwide. To qualify, a consumer had to have purchased one or more eligible HexClad hybrid cookware products in the United States or its territories between February 1, 2022 and March 31, 2024, and submitted a valid claim by November 14, 2025.

Eligible products included individual pans, pots, woks, griddles, and sets. The full product list covered the 7-inch Hybrid Fry Pan through the 14-inch Hybrid Pan with Lid, the 12-inch and 13-inch Hybrid Griddle Pans, the 10-quart Hybrid Stock Pot, the 5.5-quart and 7-quart Hybrid Deep Saute Pans, and all bundle sets including the 12-piece Hybrid Perfect Pots and Pans Set, the 13-piece HexClad Hybrid Cookware Set, the 20-piece All-In Bundle, and variations such as the Complete Kitchen Bundle, the Ultimate Everything Collection, and the Starter Bundle.

Excluded from the class were HexClad’s officers and directors, the presiding judge and court staff, and any individual who timely opted out before the August 5, 2025 deadline. Proof of purchase was not required for claims covering one or two products. Claims for three or more products required documentation such as a receipt or Amazon order confirmation.

How Settlement Payouts Worked

The $2.5 million gross settlement fund was subject to significant deductions before distribution to class members. Court-approved attorneys’ fees totaled $833,333. Attorney expenses came to $84,837. Eight service awards at $2,500 each totaled $20,000. Administration costs were capped at $312,000. That left approximately $1.25 million for distribution to valid claimants.

Payouts were calculated on a pro rata basis. Each claimant’s share depended on the number of eligible products purchased and the price actually paid. Claimants with one or two products and no proof of purchase received a pro rata payment based on average unit price. Claimants submitting proof of purchase for three or more items received payments based on actual documented prices.

No individual claimant could receive more than they spent on covered products. With approximately 209,712 timely claims filed against a net fund of roughly $1.25 million, per-claim payments landed at an estimated $6, sharply below the $25-per-claim projections circulated earlier in the process. That gap reflects the challenge common to large consumer class actions: when millions of consumers are eligible and the settlement fund is fixed, individual recoveries are thin.

Any residual funds after the first distribution trigger a second pro rata distribution to valid claimants. Remaining funds after both distributions go to the cy pres recipient, the California Fire Foundation, as ordered by the court.

HexClad’s Advertising Restrictions Going Forward

The settlement did more than distribute cash. As part of the deal, HexClad agreed to stop advertising any product containing PTFE or any chemical in the PFAS family as “PFAS free,” “PFOA free,” or “non-toxic.” That injunctive relief is the structural change that matters most for future consumers.

HexClad denied all allegations of wrongdoing throughout the litigation. The company maintained that its products are safe when used as directed and comply with applicable regulatory standards. The court made no finding that HexClad did anything wrong. The settlement was reached to avoid the cost, risk, and delay of continued litigation.

That pattern, deny liability while agreeing to significant cash payments and advertising restrictions, is familiar in false advertising class actions. As covered in the CP4 fuel pump Silverado Sierra lawsuit, companies routinely settle to manage litigation risk without conceding fault. What changes is the labeling. What does not change is the underlying chemistry.

Defendant Response and Corporate Position

HexClad, through defense counsel at Barnes and Thornburg LLP and Dunning Rievman and MacDonald LLP, contested the allegations throughout the pre-settlement period. The company argued that its products are lawful, that its marketing was not deceptive, and that PTFE-based coatings are widely used across the cookware industry and deemed safe by regulators when used at normal cooking temperatures.

That last point carries some weight. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration have not banned PTFE in cookware. The regulatory debate centers on PFOA, which was used to manufacture PTFE but was phased out domestically by 2015. Modern PTFE manufacturing uses alternative processing aids, though the long-term safety profile of those substitutes remains an area of active research.

What HexClad could not defend as readily was the specific marketing language. Calling a PTFE-containing pan “PFAS Free” requires the position that PTFE is not a PFAS. That is a contested scientific and regulatory classification. Plaintiffs’ counsel at Zimmerman Reed LLP, Jennings and Earley PLLC, and Almeida Law Group LLC argued the contrary. The settlement suggests HexClad’s defense team concluded that argument was risky to litigate.

Broader Implications for Cookware Marketing

The HexClad settlement did not happen in isolation. It is part of a broader wave of PFAS litigation targeting consumer products that marketed themselves as safe or chemical-free while using PTFE or other fluoropolymers. Similar cases have been filed or settled against other cookware and consumer goods brands.

The core legal theory, that labeling PTFE-containing products as “PFAS Free” misleads consumers, has now survived preliminary approval and resulted in a multi-million dollar settlement. That precedent puts every cookware brand using similar language on notice. The pattern of false advertising litigation is familiar territory, as consumer protection cases across industries show: when marketing outpaces the science, lawsuits follow.

The cookware industry’s response will be to adjust labeling. Expect to see “PTFE-free” replace “PFAS-free” on packaging where the distinction is accurate. Expect to see more cautious hedged language in marketing. And expect continued scrutiny from plaintiffs’ attorneys who now have a $2.5 million settled case as a template.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The HexClad case is a lesson in the gap between marketing and science. HexClad sold a premium product at premium prices with premium health and safety claims. Those claims were not supported by the product’s actual chemical composition. That gap cost the company $2.5 million and required a permanent change to its advertising practices.

For consumers, the takeaway is practical. “PFOA-free” and “PFAS-free” are not the same thing. PTFE is a fluoropolymer in the PFAS family. A pan can be free from PFOA while still containing PTFE. When a cookware brand makes broad chemical safety claims, the right question is: what is the nonstick coating made from? If the answer is PTFE, the “PFAS-free” label does not hold.

Corporate accountability in consumer products moves through litigation when regulatory frameworks lag behind marketing practices. The FDA and EPA have not required cookware manufacturers to label PTFE content explicitly. Plaintiffs’ attorneys and class action mechanisms have stepped into that gap. The HexClad settlement is the result. Whether the per-claim payout of roughly $6 represents adequate compensation for consumers who paid $200 or more for a pan is a question worth asking. The answer depends on whether you measure justice in dollars or in changed behavior. Here, the behavior changed. The advertising stops. That matters more than the check.