If you buy Driscoll's fresh strawberries, this suit is about what the company allegedly failed to tell you — but it is a brand-new complaint, so there is nothing to file or claim yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Driscoll's, Inc. has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Six consumers have filed a proposed class action alleging that Driscoll's, Inc. — the Watsonville, California berry company that calls itself the world's largest — markets its conventional strawberries as safe, wholesome and sustainably grown while failing to disclose that, according to the complaint, they contain or are grown using PFAS-related "forever chemical" pesticide residues. The case was filed June 26, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Berlinger v. Driscoll's, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06444. The allegations have not been proven, and Driscoll's has not been found liable.The plaintiffs — buyers from Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts — do not claim the strawberries physically injured them. Their theory is economic: they allege that Driscoll's built a premium brand around "Only the Finest Berries," rigorous food-safety standards and environmental sustainability, and that had the company disclosed the alleged presence of PFAS-related pesticides, they would not have bought the strawberries or would have paid less for them.
The Core Allegation: Undisclosed "Forever Pesticides"
The complaint's central claim is one of omission. It alleges that Driscoll's promotes its strawberries as produced "subject to rigorous food safety and quality standards," yet does not tell consumers — on the packaging, the label or at the point of sale — about the alleged use or presence of persistent fluorinated pesticide compounds associated with PFAS.To support that claim, the plaintiffs point to independent laboratory testing reported in May 2026 by the consumer-health site Mamavation. According to the complaint, that testing found residues of 12 different pesticides on Driscoll's conventional strawberries, 8 of which it characterizes as fluorinated PFAS compounds — chemicals the complaint labels "forever pesticides" because, like other PFAS, they are said to resist breaking down and to persist in the environment and the body. The lawsuit alleges some of the detected residue levels also exceeded pesticide limits set in various foreign jurisdictions, which it offers as evidence that the presence of the compounds is material to consumers. OCA has not independently verified the testing; these figures come from the complaint and the report it cites.
PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — are a large family of synthetic chemicals built around carbon-fluorine bonds that resist degradation, which is why they are commonly called "forever chemicals." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states that peer-reviewed studies have associated exposure to certain PFAS with a range of health effects. The complaint devotes substantial space to that science, but the case itself is a consumer-protection claim about disclosure and pricing, not a personal-injury suit.
The "Greenwashing" Claim
Alongside the food-safety allegations, the complaint accuses Driscoll's of "greenwashing" — marketing itself as environmentally responsible while allegedly using persistent synthetic chemicals in its farming. It cites the company's sustainability messaging, its "One Family, One Earth" campaign and its statements about water conservation and integrated pest management, and argues that the overall impression is misleading in light of the alleged PFAS-related pesticide use. The plaintiffs invoke the Federal Trade Commission's "Green Guides," which set out when environmental marketing claims can be deceptive, as a benchmark for the state consumer-protection laws they sue under.The complaint also references allegations attributed to a former Driscoll's food-safety and regulatory-compliance manager, raised in a separate whistleblower suit, that the company was aware of pesticide-compliance issues involving its branded strawberries. Those are allegations in a different case and have likewise not been proven. Driscoll's works with a large network of independent growers, and the complaint argues the company cannot avoid responsibility by pointing to those growers because it exercises extensive control over how berries sold under its brand are produced and marketed.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The suit is brought under the consumer-protection statutes of four states — the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A. It proposes separate state classes of consumers who bought Driscoll's conventional strawberries in Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.For relief, the complaint asks the court to order Driscoll's to disclose the alleged PFAS content in its marketing and packaging (or remove the compounds), to stop marketing the strawberries as beneficial to health and the environment, to run a corrective advertising campaign, and to pay restitution, disgorgement of profits, damages and — where the state laws allow — punitive or multiplied damages plus attorneys' fees. As a class action filed under the Class Action Fairness Act, it alleges the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. No class has been certified and the court has not ruled on any of these requests.
What Happens Next?
Because this is a newly filed complaint, the next steps are procedural. Driscoll's will have the opportunity to respond, likely with a motion to dismiss testing whether the disclosure and "greenwashing" theories state a valid claim and whether the plaintiffs' testing evidence supports them. If the case survives, it would move into discovery and a fight over class certification — stages that can take many months to years. Any refunds or other consumer relief would come only if the case later settles or the plaintiffs prevail, and any such process would be defined by the court, not available today.If you buy Driscoll's strawberries, there is nothing to file right now, and no legitimate claims process exists yet. Readers who follow food-labeling and "forever chemical" cases may find OCA's coverage of the Sprouts compostable-bowl PFAS lawsuit and its broader PFAS exposure investigation useful background on how these claims are framed. We will update this page as the docket develops.
Complaint PDF
Download the Full Class Action Complaint (PDF)Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Driscoll's strawberries lawsuit allege?
The proposed class action alleges that Driscoll's markets its conventional strawberries as safe, wholesome and sustainably grown while failing to disclose that they contain — or are grown using — PFAS-related "forever chemical" pesticide residues. The complaint relies on independent laboratory testing that reportedly found residues of 12 pesticides on the strawberries, 8 of which it describes as fluorinated PFAS compounds. The plaintiffs claim they would not have paid a premium had the company disclosed this. These are unproven allegations; Driscoll's has not been found liable.
Is there a settlement or money to claim right now?
No. This is a newly filed complaint. No class has been certified, there is no settlement, and there is no claim form or deadline. The lawsuit seeks refunds, an order requiring disclosure of the alleged PFAS content, and other relief, but nothing can be claimed at this stage.
Does this involve Driscoll's organic strawberries?
No. The complaint expressly concerns only Driscoll's conventional (non-organic) strawberries. According to the lawsuit, publicly reported testing of the company's organic strawberries showed non-detect results or materially different residue profiles, and the case does not challenge the organic line.
What are PFAS "forever chemicals"?
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a large class of synthetic chemicals built around strong carbon-fluorine bonds that resist breaking down, which is why they are nicknamed "forever chemicals." The EPA says peer-reviewed studies have associated certain PFAS exposures with a range of health effects. The complaint alleges some of the pesticides used on the strawberries are fluorinated PFAS-related compounds.
Who could be covered if a class is certified?
The complaint proposes separate classes of consumers in Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts who bought Driscoll's conventional strawberries during the applicable periods. No class has been certified, so the exact definitions and dates are not final and would be decided by the court.
Sources
- Class action complaint, Berlinger v. Driscoll's, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06444 (N.D. Cal. filed June 26, 2026) — Complaint PDF
- U.S. EPA — Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS
- Federal Trade Commission — Green Guides (Environmental Marketing Claims)
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
