HexClad Lawsuit: $2.5 Million Settlement, PFAS Allegations, and Current Status
A California class action lawsuit against HexClad Cookware settled for $2.5 million after consumers alleged the company falsely marketed its PTFE-coated cookware as “non-toxic,” “PFAS Free,” and “PFOA Free.” The case, Cliburn v. One Source to Market, LLC d/b/a HexClad Cookware, Inc., Case No. 23STCV28390, was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles and presided over by the Honorable David S. Cunningham III (Department 11, Spring Street Courthouse).
HexClad denied all allegations. No court found the company liable. The settlement received final approval on March 9, 2026, and payments to over 200,000 claimants are currently being distributed.
Quick Facts About the HexClad Lawsuit
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cliburn v. One Source to Market, LLC d/b/a HexClad Cookware, Inc. |
| Case Number | 23STCV28390 |
| Court | Los Angeles County Superior Court |
| Judge | Hon. David S. Cunningham III |
| Defendant | One Source to Market LLC d/b/a HexClad Cookware |
| Core Allegations | False advertising — non-toxic, PFAS-free, PFOA-free marketing |
| Settlement Amount | $2.5 million |
| Class Period | February 1, 2022 – March 31, 2024 |
| Preliminary Approval | April 22, 2025 |
| Claim Deadline | November 14, 2025 (closed) |
| Final Approval | March 9, 2026 |
| Current Status | Payments in distribution |
| Admission of Wrongdoing | None |
What the Lawsuit Alleged
Plaintiffs Khuschbu Didwania, Pratikkumar Patel, and Benjamin Adams filed suit in 2023 claiming that HexClad marketed its hybrid cookware as “non-toxic,” “PFAS Free,” and “PFOA Free” while the products contained polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) — a fluoropolymer that falls within the broader PFAS chemical family under many scientific definitions.
The complaint did not allege physical injury. Plaintiffs argued a price-premium theory: that consumers paid more for HexClad products because they believed the cookware offered a safer chemical profile than conventional nonstick cookware. According to court filings, HexClad acknowledged its products contain PTFE while marketing the compound as “safe and inert” — a representation plaintiffs argued was contradicted by its simultaneous PFAS-free claims.
The lawsuit cited violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the California Business and Professions Code. HexClad denied all allegations and agreed to settle to avoid the costs and uncertainty of continued litigation.
PFAS, PTFE, and PFOA: What Each Term Actually Means
These three terms appear throughout the lawsuit and are frequently confused.
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) is an umbrella term for thousands of man-made chemicals sharing similar fluorine-carbon bonds. Many resist heat, grease, and water. Some persist in the environment for decades — hence the nickname “forever chemicals.” The EPA continues to evaluate individual PFAS compounds for environmental and health impacts, particularly regarding contamination of drinking water and soil.
PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) is the specific fluoropolymer used in most nonstick cookware coatings, including HexClad’s hybrid pans. Under broad scientific definitions, PTFE is a member of the PFAS family. The FDA has long permitted PTFE for food-contact applications. Scientific reviews generally indicate it remains stable at normal cooking temperatures.
PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) is a specific PFAS compound historically used during nonstick manufacturing. Industry-wide phase-outs have largely eliminated PFOA from consumer cookware. A “PFOA-free” label does not mean a product is free from all PFAS-related materials — including PTFE.
The lawsuit turned on this distinction. Plaintiffs argued that a reasonable consumer seeing “PFAS Free” would not understand it to exclude PTFE. HexClad disagreed.
Settlement Terms and What HexClad Agreed To
Beyond the $2.5 million payment, the settlement required a meaningful change to HexClad’s marketing practices. Per the settlement agreement and the official case notice at HexCladSettlement.com, HexClad agreed to stop advertising any product containing PTFE or any chemical in the PFAS family as “PFAS free,” “PFOA free,” or “non-toxic.”
This injunctive provision — not the payment — may carry the greater long-term effect. It directly addresses the conduct that plaintiffs challenged.
The $2.5 million fund covered:
- Pro rata cash payments to eligible class members
- Court-approved attorney fees (estimated at 33⅓% of the fund)
- Litigation expenses (approximately $51,340)
- Settlement administration costs (approximately $312,000)
- Class representative service awards (approximately $2,500 per representative)
Per court filings, the settlement administrator reported a claims rate of 9.22% across a noticed population of approximately 1.93 million people — including 381,848 notified directly by Amazon as a HexClad retailer.
Payment Structure
Settlement payments were distributed pro rata. Each claimant’s share depended on:
- The number of eligible products purchased
- The actual price paid (including sale or discounted prices)
- The total number of valid claims submitted
For claimants with 1–2 items and no proof of purchase, payment was calculated using the average unit price. For claimants with 3 or more items and proof of purchase, payment was based on documented actual amounts paid. One widely cited estimate placed individual payments at approximately $6 per claim, though final amounts varied. The claim window closed on November 14, 2025. Consumers who did not submit a timely claim are not eligible to receive payment.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023 | Complaint filed, Cliburn v. One Source to Market, No. 23STCV28390, L.A. Superior Court |
| April 22, 2025 | Preliminary settlement approval granted |
| August 5, 2025 | Opt-out deadline for class members |
| September 15, 2025 | Initial final approval hearing held before Judge Cunningham |
| November 14, 2025 | Claim submission deadline (closed) |
| February 10, 2026 | Rescheduled final approval hearing |
| February 20, 2026 | Final approval granted by the Los Angeles Superior Court |
| March 9, 2026 | Final approval confirmed; payment distribution initiated |
| June 2026 | Payments are actively being distributed to 200,000+ claimants |
Is HexClad Safe to Use?
The lawsuit did not establish that HexClad cookware causes health harm. No court found the products unsafe. The case was a false advertising dispute, not a product liability or personal injury matter.
The FDA permits PTFE for food-contact use. Scientific literature generally indicates PTFE is stable under normal cooking conditions. Concerns in research studies focus on extreme overheating — empty pans on high heat reaching temperatures well above routine cooking, not ordinary household use. Consumers who follow manufacturer instructions use the product within its intended parameters.
Cookware Comparison
| Feature | HexClad | Ceramic | Stainless Steel | Cast Iron |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonstick Performance | High | Moderate | Low | Moderate (seasoned) |
| PTFE Coating | Yes | No | No | No |
| Generally PFAS-Free | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Durability | High | Moderate | Very High | Very High |
| Maintenance | Low | Moderate | Moderate | Higher |
FAQs
Is HexClad Still Safe to Use?
Yes. The lawsuit focused on marketing claims, not product safety or injury allegations. Current evidence does not show that HexClad cookware is unsafe when used as directed.
What Is the HexClad Controversy?
The controversy centers on claims that HexClad marketed its cookware as non-toxic despite using a PTFE-based nonstick coating. Plaintiffs argued that these statements could mislead consumers.
When Did HexClad Stop Using PTFE Coating?
There is no public evidence that HexClad stopped using PTFE coatings. Its hybrid cookware design continues to use PTFE-based nonstick technology.
Is the Lawsuit Against HexClad Real?
Yes. Consumers filed a real class action lawsuit alleging false advertising and misleading marketing. The case later resulted in a proposed $2.5 million settlement.
What is the HexClad lawsuit?
Cliburn v. One Source to Market, LLC d/b/a HexClad Cookware, Inc., Case No. 23STCV28390, was a class action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiffs alleged HexClad falsely advertised its PTFE-coated cookware as non-toxic and PFAS-free.
Did HexClad admit wrongdoing?
No. The company denied all allegations and agreed to settle to avoid litigation costs and uncertainty.
What did the $2.5 million settlement resolve?
It resolved false advertising and consumer protection claims related to HexClad’s “non-toxic,” “PFAS Free,” and “PFOA Free” marketing statements.
When did the court grant final approval?
The Los Angeles Superior Court, under Judge David S. Cunningham III, granted final approval on March 9, 2026.
Can I still file a claim?
No. The claim deadline was November 14, 2025. Late submissions are not accepted.
Does HexClad contain PFAS?
HexClad uses a PTFE-based coating. PTFE is a fluoropolymer that falls within the PFAS chemical family under many scientific definitions. No court issued a ruling on this scientific classification.
What did HexClad agree to change?
As part of the settlement, HexClad agreed to stop advertising products containing PTFE or any PFAS-family chemical as “PFAS free,” “PFOA free,” or “non-toxic.”
Was Gordon Ramsay named in the lawsuit?
No. Ramsay served as a brand ambassador for HexClad. He was not identified as a defendant, and the settlement imposed no obligations on him.
Did the lawsuit prove HexClad caused health problems?
No. The case focused entirely on advertising claims and consumer economic harm — not physical injury.
This article provides general informational content about the HexClad class action lawsuit. Case information is sourced from court records (Case No. 23STCV28390, L.A. Superior Court), the official settlement website (HexCladSettlement.com), and verified legal news sources. Nothing in this article constitutes legal, medical, or financial advice.
Sadia Parveen is a content writer at ClassAction24.com who creates informational articles on class action lawsuits, consumer protection matters, and legal developments. Her work focuses on researching publicly available information and presenting it in a clear and neutral format for general readers. She does not provide legal advice or professional legal services.
