Smucker Pet Food PFAS Class Action Lawsuit Moves Toward Certification, What Pet Owners Need to Know

A California federal judge recently signaled he’s leaning toward certifying a class action lawsuit against The J.M. Smucker Company for failing to warn consumers about PFAS “forever chemicals” in pet food packaging that may contaminate products like 9Lives, Kibbles ‘n Bits, and Meow Mix. The certification decision could allow thousands of pet owners who purchased these products to join the lawsuit and potentially receive compensation.

What Is the Smucker PFAS Class Action Lawsuit About?

The lawsuit, originally filed in November 2022, claims Smucker failed to disclose that pet food packaging contained synthetic PFAS chemicals despite evidence these substances may affect animal health. The case centers on whether Smucker misled consumers by marketing products as healthy and safe while allegedly knowing about PFAS contamination risks.

Testing by the Environmental Working Group found that Meow Mix Tender Centers contained 630 parts per million (ppm) of fluorine and Kibbles ‘n Bits Bacon & Steak contained 590 ppm—well above the 100 ppm threshold that indicates likely PFAS presence.

What Does Class Certification Mean for You?

Class certification allows consumers who purchased affected products to join the lawsuit as a group instead of filing individual claims. This means if you bought 9Lives, Kibbles ‘n Bits, or Meow Mix between November 4, 2018, and December 31, 2022, you could automatically become part of the case without taking additional action.

During a December 2025 hearing, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick indicated many of Smucker’s objections “are better addressed on the merits,” suggesting the court finds the certification requirements likely satisfied.

What Products Are Affected?

The lawsuit specifically involves these Smucker brands:

• 9Lives cat food products
• Kibbles ‘n Bits dog food products
• Meow Mix cat food products

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of California consumers who purchased these products between November 4, 2018, and December 31, 2022.

What Are PFAS and Why Do They Matter?

PFAS are a group of more than 4,700 man-made chemicals known as “forever chemicals” because they’re extremely persistent in the environment and body. They don’t break down naturally and accumulate over time.

These substances can cause multiple adverse health effects including liver damage, thyroid disease, obesity, fertility problems, and cancer.

Studies show PFAS exposure has been linked to serious health concerns including cancer, harm to fetal development, and reduced vaccine effectiveness. For pets, the risks may be compounded because of their smaller size and shorter lifespans.

How PFAS Get Into Pet Food

PFAS are used in pet food packaging to help bags resist moisture, fats, and oils, keeping products fresh. The problem is these chemicals can migrate from packaging into the food itself.

On November 3, 2022, the Environmental Working Group published a report identifying PFAS on 11 packages from seven pet food brands. While testing focused on packaging rather than food contents, research shows chemicals in food packaging can transfer to products inside.

What Plaintiffs Claim Smucker Did Wrong

The lawsuit alleges Smucker promoted pet food products as healthy and safe despite packaging containing PFAS that may contaminate the food and materially affect animal health.

The case contends consumers were injured by paying full price for pet foods that are “worthless” because of undisclosed contamination. Plaintiffs argue they wouldn’t have bought these products—or would have paid less—if they’d known about PFAS risks.

What Is Smucker’s Defense?

Smucker’s defense counsel argued that consumers cannot establish a causal link between the alleged failure to disclose PFAS and whether they would have altered their purchasing decisions.

Smucker also contended that its packaging consists of three layers, including ink and a clear coat over the PFAS-containing component, and that plaintiffs’ expert relied on studies involving “fundamentally different” food packaging.

The company maintains that whether PFAS actually migrates from packaging into pet food is an issue that goes to the merits of the case.

What the Court Must Decide for Certification

For class certification, plaintiffs must prove:

Numerosity: Enough people were affected to make individual lawsuits impractical Commonality: Class members share common legal questions Typicality: Named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class Adequacy: Representatives will fairly protect class interests

Judge Orrick noted that Smucker hasn’t challenged the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, Melinda Wilkins, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s College of Veterinary Medicine, through a Daubert evidentiary motion. This could strengthen the certification case.

Who Qualifies to Join This Lawsuit?

You may qualify if you:

• Purchased 9Lives, Kibbles ‘n Bits, or Meow Mix products
• Made purchases between November 4, 2018, and December 31, 2022
• Are a California resident (for the proposed class)

The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of California consumers who purchased the products during this timeframe. Once certified, eligible consumers typically don’t need to take immediate action to be included.

What Should You Do If You Bought These Products?

Keep your receipts: Save any proof of purchase for affected products, including receipts, credit card statements, or online order confirmations.

Document your purchases: Note which specific products you bought, when, and where.

Don’t throw away packaging: If you still have original packaging from purchases during the relevant time period, keep it as evidence.

Watch for class notices: Once certification is official, you’ll likely receive notice with instructions on how to participate or opt out.

You typically don’t need to hire a lawyer or take immediate action. Class members are usually automatically included once certification is granted.

What Compensation Is Being Sought?

The lawsuit seeks several types of relief:

• Refunds for consumers who purchased affected products
• Damages for paying full price for allegedly contaminated pet food
• Injunctive relief to stop the alleged misleading marketing practices

The specific compensation amounts haven’t been determined yet and would be decided through either settlement negotiations or trial verdicts.

What Happens After Certification?

If the court grants certification, the case moves through these typical stages:

Discovery: Both sides exchange evidence and documents Expert testimony: Witnesses present findings about PFAS contamination and health effects Settlement negotiations: Parties may attempt to reach an agreement Trial: If no settlement, the case goes to trial

The court hearing occurred in December 2025, with Judge Orrick indicating he’s inclined toward certification. A formal ruling should follow in early 2026.

Your Legal Rights as a Pet Owner

You have the right to:

• Be informed about potential hazards in products you purchase
• Expect accurate labeling and marketing claims
• Join class actions when companies allegedly violate consumer protection laws
• Seek compensation for damages from misleading practices

California’s consumer protection laws prohibit false advertising and unfair business practices. Federal regulations also require pet food labeling to be truthful and not misleading.

Similar PFAS Lawsuits

Several other ongoing PFAS cases have class-certification deadlines in early 2026. The Smucker case is part of broader PFAS litigation affecting multiple industries.

In New York, plaintiffs sued Ornua Foods claiming PFAS in butter packaging migrated into Kerrygold Butter, but they voluntarily dismissed the case in August 2024 after the court allowed most claims to proceed.

Testing frequently plays a key role in PFAS contamination cases, with courts closely scrutinizing allegations about testing methods.

What Pet Health Experts Say About PFAS Risks

Michigan State University conducted a PFAS in Pets study that found PFAS levels were very similar between pets and people in tested households.

Studies on PFAS exposure for pets are few, making it difficult to understand long-term toxic effects, including impacts on reproduction and offspring. However, evidence from livestock and human studies suggests cause for concern.

Research shows that when humans and animals absorb PFAS, the chemicals remain in their bodies for many years, if not for life.

State Regulations on PFAS in Food Packaging

Several states have enacted laws restricting PFAS in food packaging:

As of December 31, 2022, New York prohibited distributing or selling any food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS.

Starting January 1, 2023, California banned food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS or PFAS presence at or above 100 ppm.

Vermont’s law, effective July 1, 2023, prohibits manufacturing or selling any food package with intentionally added PFAS in any amount.

These regulations show growing recognition of PFAS risks, but enforcement and compliance remain ongoing concerns.

What the Pet Food Industry Says

No top pet food manufacturers appear to have committed publicly to stop using forever chemicals in their packaging. The Pet Food Institute has issued statements emphasizing that FDA-approved food-contact substances are designed to protect food safety, but hasn’t announced industry-wide PFAS phase-outs.

The FDA requires manufacturers to submit extensive scientific data before approving food-contact ingredients, but critics argue current standards don’t adequately address PFAS risks.

How to Reduce Your Pet’s PFAS Exposure

While waiting for the lawsuit outcome, you can take steps to limit exposure:

Switch brands: Consider pet foods with sustainably packaged options or brands that have committed to PFAS-free packaging.

Filter water: Use water filters certified to remove PFAS for both your family and pets.

Avoid stain-resistant products: Skip stain-resistant furniture, carpets, and pet bedding where possible.

Use safer food storage: Transfer pet food to glass, stainless steel, or ceramic containers instead of leaving it in original bags.

Keep homes clean: Regular dusting removes PFAS from household dust that pets may ingest.

What Happens Next in the Smucker Case

The next steps include:

• Formal certification ruling: Judge Orrick’s final decision on class certification
• Class notice: If certified, eligible consumers receive formal notification
• Discovery phase: Detailed investigation and evidence gathering
• Settlement discussions: Potential negotiations between parties
• Trial or settlement: Final resolution through court judgment or agreement

The case is Humphrey, et al. v. The J.M. Smucker Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-06913, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need to do anything right now to join this lawsuit?

No. If the class is certified and you qualify, you’re automatically included unless you choose to opt out. Wait for official class notices with specific instructions.

Will this affect the pet food I currently have?

The lawsuit covers purchases between November 4, 2018, and December 31, 2022. Current products may be different, but Smucker hasn’t publicly announced changes to packaging materials.

How much compensation might I receive?

Compensation amounts aren’t determined yet. They depend on settlement negotiations or trial outcomes and are typically divided among class members based on purchases.

Can I still buy these pet food brands?

Yes, the products remain on sale. The lawsuit doesn’t prohibit their sale—it challenges whether marketing was misleading about PFAS risks.

What if I don’t live in California?

The proposed class currently covers California consumers. If you purchased products in other states, you may be excluded from this specific case but could have other legal options.

Are PFAS in the food itself or just the packaging?

Environmental Working Group testing identified PFAS on packaging, not in the pet foods themselves. However, research shows chemicals can migrate from packaging to food contents.

Has Smucker recalled these products?

No recall has been issued. The lawsuit is a civil action by consumers, not a regulatory recall by government agencies.

What if I threw away my receipts?

Other documentation may help, including credit card statements, store loyalty program records, or online purchase history. Requirements vary by settlement terms.

The Bottom Line for Pet Owners

The Smucker PFAS class action lawsuit represents a significant step toward potential accountability for undisclosed PFAS in pet food packaging. With the court indicating it’s inclined toward certification, affected consumers may soon have a formal path to compensation.

Whether you purchased affected products or simply want to protect your pets, staying informed about PFAS risks and lawsuit developments is important. This case could set precedents for how pet food companies disclose packaging ingredients and potential contamination risks.

Monitor official class action notifications, preserve purchase documentation, and consider consulting the lawsuit website or a consumer rights attorney if you have specific questions about your situation.

This article provides general information about the Smucker PFAS class action lawsuit and is not legal advice. For specific legal guidance about your situation, consult a qualified attorney.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah