CASE NAME: Robert Berlinger, et al. v. Driscoll’s, Inc.

CASE NO.: Not yet assigned at the time of filing.

JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

FILED ON: June 26, 2026

CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to represent consumers in Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York who purchased Driscoll’s conventional strawberries during the applicable statutory periods.

SUMMARY:

Driscoll’s, Inc. has been named in a proposed class action alleging that the company misled consumers by marketing its conventional strawberries as premium, safe, and sustainably produced while failing to disclose the alleged presence and use of PFAS-related pesticide compounds, commonly referred to as “forever chemicals.” According to the complaint, consumers paid premium prices because Driscoll’s emphasized rigorous food safety standards, environmental stewardship, and superior quality. The lawsuit alleges that independent laboratory testing detected multiple PFAS-related pesticide residues in the strawberries and contends that consumers would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less for them, had this information been disclosed. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring disclosure of PFAS-related compounds, and changes to Driscoll’s marketing and labeling practices.

ALLEGATIONS:

According to the complaint, Driscoll’s has spent decades building a premium brand centered on food safety, quality, sustainability, and consumer trust. The lawsuit points to numerous statements on Driscoll’s packaging and website promoting its berries as “Only the Finest Berries,” emphasizing rigorous food safety standards, careful oversight of growers, sustainable farming practices, integrated pest management, and environmental responsibility. Plaintiffs allege these representations created the impression that Driscoll’s conventional strawberries were produced with exceptional care and free from contaminants that consumers increasingly seek to avoid.

The complaint alleges that these marketing representations were misleading because independent testing published in May 2026 reportedly detected residues of multiple pesticides on Driscoll’s conventional strawberries, including eight pesticides characterized in the lawsuit as PFAS-related or “forever pesticides.” The complaint references testing that allegedly identified residues of compounds including flonicamid, fludioxonil, flupyradifurone, fluxapyroxad, indoxacarb, novaluron, tetraconazole, and TFNG, along with several additional pesticide residues. Plaintiffs contend that these findings contradict Driscoll’s marketing emphasizing premium safety and environmentally responsible farming practices.

The lawsuit further alleges that PFAS compounds have become the subject of increasing scientific and regulatory concern because they persist in the environment, accumulate in living organisms, and have been associated in scientific literature with various adverse health effects. The complaint cites research discussing potential links between PFAS exposure and developmental effects, immune system impacts, hormonal disruption, certain cancers, reproductive effects, and other health concerns. Plaintiffs allege that because consumers are increasingly concerned about PFAS exposure, the alleged presence or use of PFAS-related compounds would have been material to purchasing decisions.

Plaintiffs also point to Driscoll’s sustainability messaging, alleging the company promoted environmentally friendly growing practices while failing to disclose its alleged use of PFAS-related pesticides. The complaint characterizes these representations as “greenwashing,” asserting that consumers paid premium prices based on beliefs that Driscoll’s strawberries were produced using safer and more environmentally responsible agricultural practices than competing products. According to the lawsuit, survey data demonstrates that consumers are highly concerned about harmful chemicals in food and desire greater transparency from manufacturers regarding chemical use.

In addition, the complaint references allegations made in a separate lawsuit filed by a former Driscoll’s food safety and regulatory compliance manager. According to the complaint, that former employee alleges company management knew of pesticide compliance issues and prioritized protecting the company’s brand rather than addressing those concerns. Driscoll’s has not been found liable for those allegations, and they are presented in the complaint as part of the plaintiffs’ factual allegations.

The named plaintiffs, residents of New Jersey, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts, each allege they regularly purchased Driscoll’s conventional strawberries after reviewing the company’s packaging and marketing. They contend they believed the products met heightened safety and quality standards and were free from undisclosed contaminants. According to the complaint, had they known about the alleged PFAS-related pesticide compounds, they either would not have purchased the strawberries or would have paid substantially less. Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring disclosure of PFAS-related compounds, and other relief available under various state consumer protection statutes.