People in the U.S. who bought Lagunitas beer may be covered by a proposed class action alleging The Lagunitas Brewing Company failed to disclose that its beer contains PFAS “forever chemicals” at levels above EPA drinking-water limits. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. The Lagunitas Brewing Company has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational. It is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A San Francisco man filed a proposed class action against The Lagunitas Brewing Company on November 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is Talbot v. The Lagunitas Brewing Company, No. 3:26-cv-12965.The complaint alleges that Lagunitas beer contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” and that the company sold it without disclosing that fact. It relies on lab tests of Lagunitas IPA that the plaintiff paid for in 2026, and on a 2025 scientific study of PFAS in beer.
Lagunitas, based in Petaluma, California, has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Heineken since 2017. As of November 3, 2026, the docket showed no response from the company, and it has not been found liable for anything.
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.
What the Plaintiff’s Tests Allegedly Found
According to the complaint, a lab in Bend, Oregon tested Lagunitas IPA between April and June 2026, using a version of EPA Method 533, the method the agency uses to measure PFAS in drinking water. The complaint describes these results:- A tallboy can bought in Eugene, Oregon contained 100 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFNA.
- A tallboy can bought in Green Bay, Wisconsin contained 67 ppt of PFOA and 58 ppt of PFNA.
- A bottle bought in Green Bay contained 44 ppt of PFOA.
The complaint says one can of Modelo Especial, tested in September 2026 for comparison, did not contain any of the PFAS the EPA has found pose a health risk.
Those EPA limits are maximum contaminant levels for public drinking water systems. The complaint compares the beer results to them and to state drinking-water limits; it does not cite a federal PFAS limit written for beer. It also notes that the EPA has proposed rescinding the enforceable limit for PFNA, for what the agency calls procedural reasons.
The 2025 Beer Study
The complaint points to a peer-reviewed study by researchers at RTI International, published in April 2025 in Environmental Science & Technology. The study tested 23 beers for 17 kinds of PFAS and identified each beer only by the county and state where it was brewed.One of those beers was brewed in Sonoma County, California. Across five measurements, it averaged 3.187 ppt of PFOA, with one reading above the EPA’s 4 ppt drinking-water limit. The study did not name the brand. The complaint alleges it was likely Lagunitas, because Lagunitas is the largest brewery in Sonoma County and the only one there that distributes nationally.
The complaint also alleges that Lagunitas appeared on a 2023 Maine Department of Environmental Protection list of manufacturers granted an extension of that state’s PFAS-in-products reporting deadline. It argues that this and the study should have put the company on notice. Those are the plaintiff’s allegations, and the company has not responded to them in court.
Who Would Be in the Class?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of all people in the United States who bought Lagunitas beer for personal, family or household use. The company, its parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, and their directors and officers are excluded. The plaintiff can change that definition later in the case.The class definition covers Lagunitas beer generally, while the testing described in the complaint was on Lagunitas IPA. The complaint says the IPA and Little Sumpin’ Sumpin’ made up 67% of the 706,000 barrels Lagunitas produced in 2024.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint brings four claims: violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, breach of implied warranty under California’s Song-Beverly Act and Commercial Code, and unjust enrichment.It asks the court to certify the class and to award damages, including punitive damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees, plus an order stopping the conduct it challenges. The complaint says the plaintiff’s lawyers will send Lagunitas a pre-suit notice letter and may seek additional damages under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act if the company does not respond to it.
The lawsuit seeks money for buyers who say they would not have bought the beer had PFAS been disclosed. It does not seek compensation for illness. The plaintiff is represented by KalielGold PLLC and Wolf Popper LLP.
What Happens Next
Lagunitas will have to respond to the complaint, often with a motion to dismiss in consumer cases like this one. If the case survives, the plaintiff would later ask the court to certify the class. There is no deadline for consumers and nothing to sign up for at this stage.Questions
Is there a Lagunitas settlement to claim?
No. The case was filed on November 2, 2026. No class has been certified, no settlement exists and there is no claim form. Any money would come only from a future settlement or judgment.
Which Lagunitas beers does the lawsuit cover?
The proposed class covers people in the United States who bought Lagunitas beer. The testing described in the complaint was done on Lagunitas IPA, in cans and bottles bought in Oregon and Wisconsin.
Is there a legal PFAS limit for beer?
The limits the complaint cites are the EPA’s maximum contaminant levels for public drinking water: 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and 10 parts per trillion for PFNA. The complaint compares its beer results to those drinking-water limits. It does not cite a federal PFAS limit written for beer.
Is this a personal injury lawsuit?
No. The complaint seeks economic relief for buyers — refunds, damages and an order requiring disclosure — on the theory that they would not have bought the beer had PFAS been disclosed. It does not seek compensation for illness.
Sources
- Docket and complaint, Talbot v. The Lagunitas Brewing Company, No. 3:26-cv-12965 (N.D. Cal.)
- “Hold My Beer: The Linkage between Municipal Water and Brewing Location on PFAS in Popular Beverages,” Environmental Science & Technology (2025)
- EPA: PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
