Groupe SEB and Meyer sue Caraway over PFAS advertising claims
The litigation centres on Caraway’s marketing of its products as free of “toxic” forever chemicals, a claim the plaintiffs argue is scientifically unfounded and damages competitors.
Groupe SEB USA and Meyer have initiated legal proceedings in the Southern District of New York against cookware manufacturer Caraway, alleging false advertising and reputational harm. The lawsuit, filed in February, contends that Caraway’s marketing campaign promoting its products as free of “toxic” per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is scientifically unfounded and causes continuing harm to the industry. The plaintiffs argue that while Caraway does not name competitors, its messaging implies that traditional nonstick coatings are dangerous, thereby damaging the market position of established manufacturers.
Caraway founder Jordan Nathan has defended the company’s advertising practices, asserting that the materials comply with previous rulings by the National Advertising Division (NAD). Nathan attributed disputed imagery and outdated messaging cited in the complaint to technical glitches, stating that current advertisements focus on Caraway’s own product attributes rather than comparative claims. He maintained that the company fully adhered to the NAD’s recommendation to avoid specific assertions that other nonstick cookware releases toxins during ordinary use.
The legal dispute emerges against a backdrop of intense industry advocacy and legislative scrutiny. Groupe SEB, the parent company of Groupe SEB USA, and Meyer formed the Cookware Sustainability Alliance in 2024 to oppose state-level bans on consumer products containing PFAS. The alliance has actively lobbied against such restrictions, arguing that polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based coatings are fundamentally safe when used as intended. This stance contrasts with Caraway’s branding, which rose to prominence by positioning itself as a “forever-chemical-free” alternative.
Legal experts note that the case will likely hinge on the scientific evidence surrounding PTFE safety. Michael Goodyear, an associate professor at New York Law School, indicated that the trial will focus on whether PTFE poses health risks under normal cooking conditions. While PFAS are a broad class of chemicals linked to various health impacts, the industry has phased out the most harmful types used in the past. The lawsuit argues that PTFE has never been proven to pose measurable risks to consumers under normal use, whereas Caraway’s marketing has historically referenced “Teflon flu,” a condition linked to overheating fumes.
The litigation highlights the complex regulatory environment surrounding PFAS. Although the FDA permits certain PFAS for nonstick coatings, its rationale focuses on migration to food rather than toxicity from overheated fumes. Environmental scientists note that while consumer exposure studies are limited, worker exposure in manufacturing remains a documented concern. As the case proceeds to trial, it will serve as a significant test for how advertising claims regarding chemical safety are interpreted in the context of evolving consumer health concerns and industry standards.
