Driscoll’s Strawberries PFAS Lawsuit, Were You Affected? — Berlinger v. Driscoll’s, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06444

Driscoll’s, Inc. is facing a proposed class action — Berlinger v. Driscoll’s, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06444 — alleging its conventional strawberries carry undisclosed PFAS-related “forever chemical” pesticide residues despite being marketed as safe, wholesome, and sustainably grown. If you buy Driscoll’s strawberries and that concerns you, you’re not alone. Here’s exactly what the lawsuit claims, who it covers, and what — if anything — you need to do right now.

Driscoll’s PFAS Strawberries Lawsuit — Key Facts

Lawsuit Filed	June 26, 2026
Defendant	Driscoll’s, Inc.
Alleged Harm	Undisclosed PFAS-related pesticide residues on conventional strawberries; “greenwashing” environmental marketing
Law Alleged	Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; N.Y. General Business Law §§ 349 & 350; New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 93A, §§ 2 & 9
Who Is Affected	Consumers in Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts who bought Driscoll’s conventional (non-organic) strawberries
Court & Case Number	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, No. 5:26-cv-06444
Current Stage	Complaint filed; Driscoll’s has not yet responded; no class certified
Lead Plaintiff Deadline	N/A — this is a consumer class action, not a securities case; six named plaintiffs already represent the proposed classes
Settlement Status	No settlement — active litigation
Last Updated	August 28, 2026

Who Is Driscoll’s and Why Are They Being Sued Over PFAS?

Driscoll’s controls roughly a third of the $9 billion U.S. berry market, and that dominance was built almost entirely on brand trust — its trademarked “Only the Finest Berries” slogan and repeated promises of “rigorous food safety standards.” That branding is exactly why the lawsuit targets Driscoll’s rather than an individual farm: the complaint says Driscoll’s licenses its patented berry varieties to growers, sets and audits their pesticide standards, and controls everything sold under its name, so it can’t point to “independent” growers to dodge responsibility. A company that sells trust as much as fruit becomes an easy target the moment lab testing contradicts the label.

What Did Driscoll’s Fail to Disclose to Strawberry Buyers in Spring 2026?

In May 2026, the consumer-advocacy group Mamavation published lab results from two boxes of Driscoll’s conventional strawberries. According to the complaint, that testing found residue from 12 different pesticides — eight of which the plaintiffs classify as PFAS “forever chemicals”: flonicamid, fludioxonil, flupyradifurone, fluxapyroxad, indoxacarb, novaluron, tetraconazole, and a compound listed as TFNG, with individual residue levels ranging from roughly 13 to 60 parts per billion. Driscoll’s organic strawberries, tested in the same investigation, reportedly came back clean.

Related article: New York City Central Booking Settlement, Check If You Qualify — Capobianco, et al. v. The City of New York, et al., No. 1:21-cv-06125

The lawsuit doesn’t claim Driscoll’s broke a pesticide-residue limit — plaintiffs explicitly say they aren’t claiming the berries made anyone sick or exceeded U.S. residue thresholds. It’s a disclosure case instead, built on five counts across four state consumer-protection statutes: 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. In plain terms, these laws let consumers sue when a company hides facts that would have changed their buying decision — here, the claim is that “Only the Finest Berries” packaging never mentioned PFAS-linked pesticides, while Driscoll’s simultaneously ran sustainability messaging the complaint calls greenwashing.

If PFAS-in-marketing lawsuits sound familiar, they should — the HexClad “PFAS-free” cookware settlement followed the same basic pattern: a brand’s own safety claims becoming the evidence used against it.

Two related cases are also worth knowing about. A former Driscoll’s food-safety manager filed a whistleblower suit, Harada v. Driscoll’s Inc., No. 2026-68656, in Ventura County Superior Court on June 24, 2026, alleging he was disciplined and fired after refusing to help conceal pesticide-compliance issues — those allegations are unproven and are the subject of separate litigation. A second consumer complaint was also filed by a California resident in Santa Cruz County Superior Court roughly a week after the federal case. Neither of those cases changes what’s covered by the Berlinger complaint discussed here.

None of this has been proven, and Driscoll’s has publicly rejected the claims as without merit, saying food safety and regulatory compliance remain central to how it operates. That’s exactly why this matters right now — the allegations are serious, but nothing has been decided.

Are You Part of the Driscoll’s PFAS Strawberries Lawsuit?

Here’s exactly how to know if this case includes you.

• Illinois residents who bought Driscoll’s conventional strawberries
• New York shoppers who purchased Driscoll’s conventional strawberries at retailers like Wegmans, ALDI, or Target
• New Jersey buyers of Driscoll’s conventional strawberries from stores such as ShopRite or Stop & Shop
• Massachusetts consumers who bought the same conventional strawberries for personal or household use

You are not covered by this particular complaint if you only bought Driscoll’s organic strawberries — the lawsuit doesn’t challenge that product line — or if you live outside Illinois, New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts.

Driscoll’s PFAS Lawsuit Outside Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts — Are You Still Covered?

Not by this complaint. The proposed classes are limited to those four states. If you live elsewhere, this specific case doesn’t cover you, though a related consumer complaint has separately been filed in Santa Cruz County Superior Court in California.

Not sure if you’re covered by the Driscoll’s PFAS lawsuit? A free consultation with a consumer fraud attorney can help you understand your options before any deadlines get set.

What Are Driscoll’s Strawberry Buyers Asking the Court to Award?

No money yet. No claim form yet. The complaint asks the court to order Driscoll’s to disclose the alleged PFAS content in its marketing and packaging (or remove the compounds), stop marketing the strawberries as environmentally beneficial, run a corrective advertising campaign, and pay restitution, disgorgement of profits, and damages — plus punitive or multiplied damages and attorneys’ fees where state law allows. As a class action filed under the Class Action Fairness Act, the complaint alleges the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, though that figure describes the overall scope of the case, not what any individual buyer might receive.

What Could Driscoll’s Strawberry Buyers Receive If This Case Settles?

Impossible to predict at this stage. It depends on how many claimants come forward, what the evidence shows, and how any settlement negotiations play out — assuming the case gets that far. A motion to dismiss typically comes first. Talk to a consumer fraud attorney if you want help tracking what happens next.

What Should Driscoll’s Strawberry Buyers Do Right Now?

1. Relax — if you’re in Illinois, New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts and bought conventional strawberries, you’re automatically part of the proposed class. Nothing to file yet.
2. Save your documentation now: receipts, loyalty-program purchase history, or photos of the clamshell packaging you bought.
3. Note roughly how much you’ve spent on Driscoll’s conventional strawberries and over what period — that record could matter later.
4. Skip the lead-plaintiff question. This isn’t a securities case, so there’s no lead-plaintiff deadline to track — six named plaintiffs already represent the proposed classes.
5. Monitor the docket: Berlinger v. Driscoll’s, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06444, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
6. If you’d rather not wait on the class action, you can consult your own attorney about pursuing an individual claim instead.

Driscoll’s PFAS Strawberries Lawsuit — Full Timeline

Milestone	Date
Independent lab testing publicized (Mamavation report)	May 2026
Whistleblower suit filed — Harada v. Driscoll’s Inc., Ventura County Superior Court	June 24, 2026
Class action complaint filed — Berlinger v. Driscoll’s, Inc.	June 26, 2026
Related consumer complaint filed, Santa Cruz County Superior Court	UNVERIFIED — reported as roughly one week after the federal filing; exact date not confirmed on a court docket
Next scheduled hearing	UNVERIFIED — not yet reflected on the official Northern District of California case docket as of this writing
Expected resolution	UNVERIFIED — case is in its earliest stage; no ruling on any motion, no class certified

Driscoll’s PFAS Strawberries — Frequently Asked Questions, No. 5:26-cv-06444

Is there a class action lawsuit against Driscoll’s for PFAS in strawberries right now? 

Yes. Berlinger v. Driscoll’s, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06444, was filed June 26, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Do I need to do anything right now to be part of the Driscoll’s lawsuit? 

No. If you’re in one of the four named states and bought conventional strawberries, you’re automatically part of the proposed class. There’s nothing to file and no deadline yet.

When will the Driscoll’s PFAS case settle? 

Unknown. The complaint was only just filed. Driscoll’s still has to respond, likely with a motion to dismiss, before the case can move toward discovery or settlement talks.

Can I file my own lawsuit against Driscoll’s instead of joining the class? 

Yes, that’s an option. Talk to a consumer fraud attorney about the trade-offs between pursuing an individual claim and staying in the proposed class.

How will I find out if the Driscoll’s lawsuit settles?

 Watch the court docket for No. 5:26-cv-06444 in the Northern District of California. If a settlement is reached, the court will require formal notice to class members before it takes effect.

What does “lead plaintiff” mean for the Driscoll’s case, and why does the deadline matter?

 It doesn’t apply here. Lead-plaintiff deadlines are a securities-fraud concept. Six named plaintiffs — from Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts — already represent the proposed classes in this case.

What specific laws does Driscoll’s allegedly violate?

 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, §§ 2 and 9.

How much could Driscoll’s strawberry buyers get if this case settles?

 Nothing is set yet. The complaint seeks restitution, disgorgement, damages, and — where state law allows — multiplied damages plus attorneys’ fees, but no dollar figure has been proposed for individual buyers.

Sources Used in This Driscoll’s PFAS Strawberries Article

• Class Action Complaint, Berlinger, et al. v. Driscoll’s, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06444 (N.D. Cal., filed June 26, 2026)
• U.S. District Court, Northern District of California — Official case docket: cand.uscourts.gov/cases-e-filing/cases/526-cv-06444

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the class action complaint filed in Berlinger v. Driscoll’s, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06444, and the official Northern District of California case docket on August 28, 2026. Last Updated: August 28, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The allegations described here are unproven, and Driscoll’s has not been found liable. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.