Driscoll’s class action claims ‘safe’ strawberries contain PFAS-related compounds

Driscoll’s class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiff Christina Washington filed a class action lawsuit against Driscoll’s Inc.
• Why: Washington claims Driscoll’s failed to disclose its strawberries contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
• Where: The Driscoll’s class action lawsuit was filed in California state court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges Driscoll’s failed to disclose that its strawberries contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — also known as “forever chemicals.”

Plaintiff Christina Washington claims Driscoll’s represents that its strawberries are produced with “rigorous food safety and quality standards,” when, in reality, independent testing has detected that they contain PFAS compounds known to be dangerous and “cause serious health issues.” 

“Reasonable consumers do not expect that premium strawberries that Driscoll’s marketed through extensive representations concerning safety, quality control, purity and rigorous oversight would contain PFAS residues or PFAS-related compounds,” the Driscoll’s class action lawsuit says. 

Independent laboratory testing identified “multiple pesticide residues on Driscoll’s strawberries, including fluorinated pesticide compounds and/or compounds associated with PFAS chemistry,” as discussed by the Mamavation Report in or around May 2026, according to the class action lawsuit. 

Washington wants to represent a California class of consumers who bought Driscoll’s strawberries for personal, family or household use during the applicable limitations period. 

Driscoll’s ‘greenwashed’ its farming practices, class action alleges

Washington argues Driscoll’s ran an environmentally friendly campaign while “greenwashing its true farming and manufacturing practices” that included these forever chemicals “known to be extraordinarily difficult to clean up and break down” 

“Driscoll’s does not market its strawberries as a mere agricultural commodity. For decades, Driscoll’s has invested tens of millions of dollars cultivating a brand synonymous with exceptional quality, safety, scientific innovation and consumer trust,” the Driscoll’s class action lawsuit says. 

Washington claims Driscoll’s is guilty of violating California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. 

The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of punitive damages for herself and all class members. 

In a past case involving PFAS, multinational company DuPont agreed in 2025 to pay $27 million to end claims it contaminated drinking water in Hoosick Falls, New York, with PFAS. 

Have you bought Driscoll’s strawberries for personal, family or household use? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Jennifer Sarnelli of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Stephen A. Weiss of Seeger Weiss LLP and Rebecca A. Peterson of Hecht Partners LLP.

The Driscoll’s class action lawsuit is Washington v. Driscoll’s Inc., Case No. 26CV02011, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Microsoft accused of harvesting K-12 students’ personal, behavioral data
• Toyota recalls Tacoma models due to potential shock absorber detachment
• TikTok agrees to pay $400M to resolve DOJ lawsuit over children’s data privacy
• Abbott Laboratories agrees to $670M settlement over premature infant formula claims