Caraway and “Big Cookware” clash over PFAS advertising

Caraway’s PFAS-free – Caraway says major cookware makers are using litigation to silence it after it built its brand around PFAS-free pans. The dispute, filed in February in New York federal court, centers on claims Caraway says are based on forever-chemical-free marketing—even as

A debate that started with “forever chemicals” in cookware has now spilled into the language of ads—and it’s getting personal.

Caraway. the company that rose to prominence by selling forever-chemical-free pans. is alleging that a larger group of cookware rivals is using a lawsuit to try to “silence” it. The accusation comes after Caraway launched a marketing campaign in response to a legal challenge filed in February by two major pan makers—Groupe SEB USA and Meyer.

That lawsuit. filed in the Southern District of New York. argues that Caraway is harming the industry by marketing its products as free of “toxic” chemicals while never naming either company in its ads. Groupe SEB USA and Meyer say Caraway’s marketing about forever chemicals—per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances. or PFAS—is not grounded in scientific fact and “has caused immense and continuing harm to consumers. to Plaintiffs. and to other cookware and bakeware companies in the marketplace.”.

Caraway’s message is landing in a place the courts take seriously: advertising standards.

In a press release sent in response to questions. Carmine Zarlenga. a lawyer at Mayer Brown representing Groupe SEB USA and Meyer. said: “Claiming to be a smaller company is no defense to false advertising—all companies large and small have the same rights and obligations under federal and state false advertising laws.”.

The latest lawsuit is only one front in a wider fight over PFAS in everyday products. It follows years in which two of the biggest cookware players have pushed back against anti-PFAS advocacy.

In 2024. as more than two dozen state legislatures weighed bans on consumer products containing PFAS. Groupe SEB—parent company of Groupe SEB USA—and Meyer formed the Cookware Sustainability Alliance. The group has lobbied at the state level. including signing letters and testifying in statehouses. and it describes its mission as protecting what it views as safe cookware from being swept into overly broad bans.

Steve Burns, the alliance’s president, told WIRED in an email: “The Cookware Sustainability Alliance focuses on state-level advocacy to protect perfectly safe cookware from being swept into overly broad PFAS product bans. We are not a party to any lawsuit at this point.”

The political pressure around PFAS reached celebrity kitchens too. Last fall. as a bill in the California legislature moved to ban consumer products containing PFAS. celebrity chefs including Rachael Ray. Marcus Samuelsson. and David Chang sent letters opposing the measure. Ray and Chang have cookware lines affiliated with Meyer. and Samuelsson serves as a “chef partner” for All-Clad. which is owned by Groupe SEB.

WIRED sought comment from All Clad, Ray, Samuelsson, and Chang. All four did not respond.

California’s bill ultimately passed the legislature, but Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed it.

Now the dispute has turned from legislation to the specifics of what can be claimed in advertising. Before this February case. the Cookware Sustainability Alliance challenged Caraway’s marketing through the National Advertising Division (NAD). an independent nonprofit often linked with the Better Business Bureau National Programs that self-polices ad claims.

The NAD ruled that Caraway could continue to advertise its products as “nontoxic” and “PFAS-free.” But it directed Caraway to avoid particular types of claims—especially a warning that other nonstick cookware “can release toxins into your food and home during ordinary, manufacturer-recommended use.”

The February lawsuit alleges Caraway continued using that kind of messaging after the NAD decision. Caraway argues that most of the ads highlighted in the suit simply say its products are nontoxic and that it complied with the NAD’s recommendations. Still, the lawsuit claims that Caraway “has not taken down many of the relevant advertisements.”.

In a memo supporting a dismissal motion, Caraway alleged the NAD did not provide “any factual support whatsoever to the element of consumer deception.”

The through-line is clear even before the legal arguments take over: in a market where PFAS language can sway buying decisions, each side is accusing the other of crossing a line between consumer information and consumer harm.

And for Caraway, the stakes go beyond the courtroom. The company’s brand identity is built around forever-chemical-free cookware. For Groupe SEB USA and Meyer. the concern is that Caraway’s broader claims damage competitors and mislead consumers—especially in a culture already primed to read PFAS claims as either reassurance or risk.

The fight shows no sign of cooling. Caraway has launched a marketing response, while the February lawsuit presses forward in New York federal court over what the company can say, how it says it, and whether consumers are being pulled toward a conclusion the law says must be backed by evidence.

Caraway PFAS cookware forever chemicals Groupe SEB USA Meyer advertising claims false advertising National Advertising Division NAD Rachael Ray Marcus Samuelsson David Chang Gavin Newsom