Big Cookware Brands Sue Caraway Over 'Forever Chemical' Claims

Groupe SEB USA and Meyer, two of the largest cookware manufacturers, filed suit against direct-to-consumer brand Caraway in February in federal court in New York. Their complaint: Caraway's marketing around what are called "forever chemicals" harms the broader cookware industry.

The lawsuit is the latest move in a battle over per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — synthetic chemicals used in consumer products since the 1940s. They show up in cookware, food packaging, and stain repellents. The companies suing argue that Caraway's promotion of its ceramic-coated pans as "nontoxic" and "PFAS-free" puts unfair pressure on them and the rest of the sector.

The timing matters. More than two dozen state legislatures in 2024 considered banning consumer products containing PFAS. California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed such a bill in the fall after celebrity chefs sent letters against it, citing concerns about cookware performance.

Two Industry Giants Push Back

Groupe SEB USA and Meyer formed the Cookware Sustainability Alliance in 2024 as a unified front against PFAS-related marketing and regulation. The alliance first challenged Caraway through the National Advertising Division (NAD), the advertising industry's self-policing body.

The NAD ruled that Caraway could advertise its products as "nontoxic" and "PFAS-free," but should tone down certain specific claims. That decision apparently did not satisfy the alliance members, so they moved to federal court.

Caraway's founder, Jordan Nathan, built the brand around ceramic non-stick coatings — a different approach from the PFAS-based coatings used in traditional non-stick pans. His marketing explicitly positions Caraway pans against conventional cookware that relies on PFAS to work.

Where Regulators Stand

The lawsuit sits within a complex regulatory picture. The FDA has authorized certain PFAS for use in food-contact applications since the 1960s. These include non-stick coatings, sealing gaskets in food-processing equipment, manufacturing aids, and grease-resistant agents on paper and cardboard food packaging.

But the regulatory direction is shifting. In February 2024, the FDA announced that manufacturers have stopped selling PFAS-based grease-proofing agents for food-contact paper and cardboard in the U.S. market. In January 2024, the EPA created a new rule that makes it harder for anyone to restart manufacture of certain inactive PFAS without EPA approval.

FDA data suggest that only grease-proofing agents on paper would expose people to PFAS levels that raise a potential safety concern. Most foods—apart from those grown or produced in areas with known PFAS contamination—do not contain detectable PFAS according to the FDA's testing. That said, the agency did recall products from two firms in 2022 after finding PFAS levels that posed a likely health risk.

The FDA plans to test more foods for PFAS through 2026, keeping pressure on the industry to prove its products are safe.

The Real Competition Underneath

The lawsuit touches on a deeper tension in how cookware makers market safety to consumers who have become more aware of chemical exposure. Traditional non-stick pans rely on fluoropolymer coatings—a type of plastic coating containing PFAS—that allow food to slide off and survive high heat without breaking down.

Caraway's ceramic approach sidesteps PFAS altogether. The trade-off is that ceramic coatings do not perform as well under the intense heat or heavy use that professional chefs demand, and they have not been as popular with consumers historically. Caraway's marketing turns this into a choice: accept slightly lower performance to reduce chemical exposure.

From the viewpoint of traditional manufacturers, this creates a classic problem. When one company says its product is safe because it avoids a certain chemical, it indirectly suggests that competitors' products—which contain that chemical—are less safe. Even if those products meet FDA standards, the messaging damages confidence in them. The alliance members argue that Caraway's positioning unfairly undermines trust in cookware that regulators have already approved.

The pattern here bears resemblance to past disputes over chemical safety. In the 1990s, companies that removed phthalates (chemicals used in plastics) from consumer goods gained a marketing edge that eventually pushed the whole industry toward phthalate-free formulations and regulatory action. The PFAS fight has echoes of the same dynamic: real scientific questions about long-term health effects, regulators moving cautiously, and companies using safety claims for competitive advantage while incumbents defend what they already make.

What Happens Next

Groupe SEB USA owns major brands including T-fal, All-Clad, and Krups. Meyer manufactures Anolon, Circulon, and other cookware lines. Together, they hold substantial market share in traditional non-stick cookware. Their legal strategy appears designed to constrain specific marketing language rather than to defend PFAS itself—a tacit acknowledgment that consumer concern about forever chemicals is real and not going away.

The celebrity chef letters that helped kill California's PFAS ban bill reveal another piece of the picture. Professional cooks who work at high heat often prefer traditional PFAS-based non-stick surfaces because ceramic alternatives can wear out or fail under intense use. Performance matters to them more than chemical avoidance.

The legal outcome could shape how cookware companies are allowed to market safety claims. If the alliance wins, rival brands may find it harder to differentiate by advertising that they avoid PFAS. If Caraway prevails, other direct-to-consumer cookware makers may adopt similar positioning strategies.

The FDA's testing program through 2026 will influence both the courts and the market. If the agency finds additional safety problems or issues recalls, PFAS-free alternatives gain credibility. If FDA testing shows that approved PFAS uses remain safe, traditional manufacturers have stronger ground to defend current formulations. The cookware market appears to be in genuine transition—a moment when established manufacturing meets changing consumer preference and tightening regulation. The outcome here will tell us something about whether companies can reshape a mature market through safety-focused messaging, or whether incumbents can hold the line through legal action.