All-Clad Lawsuit: Defect, Claims, and Where It Stands

A federal court approved the All-Clad lawsuit settlement in February 2023, resolving consolidated class action claims that All-Clad Metalcrafters falsely marketed its D3, D5, and LTD stainless steel cookware as dishwasher safe. The deal, valued at up to $6.5 million, offered eligible buyers a $75 cash refund plus a replacement pan, an exchange for a cookware set, or a discount on future purchases. The claims deadline passed on April 18, 2023, and the claims process closed in early 2024.¹

Who the Settlement Covered

The settlement class included anyone in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia who bought All-Clad D3, D5, or LTD cookware between January 1, 2015, and July 29, 2022.² The defendants were All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC and its parent, Groupe SEB USA, Inc.³ Other All-Clad lines and purchases outside that window were not part of the deal.

What Class Members Could Claim

The settlement gave claimants four options, split between people whose cookware had actually developed the defect and those whose pans were still intact or had been thrown out.

For damaged cookware, class members could pick one of three routes. The first paid a $75 cash refund per damaged piece and shipped a free replacement, provided the claimant returned the defective pan to All-Clad within 30 days of an arranged date and All-Clad confirmed the sharp-edge defect. The second swapped damaged cookware for either a five-piece fry pan set or a 13-piece essentials set. The third gave a 50% discount on future All-Clad purchases, capped at $600 off a $1,200 order.¹⁴

If the cookware wasn’t damaged, or had already been discarded, the fourth option offered a 35% discount on future All-Clad purchases, capped at $262.50 off a $750 order. This option required proof of purchase such as a store receipt, invoice, or order confirmation.¹

The cash side of the settlement ran through a common fund of up to $4 million reserved solely for the $75-per-piece refunds. An initial $3 million was allocated, with another $1 million available if claims ran high. If total claims exceeded $4 million, payments would be reduced pro rata. Attorney fees, administration costs, and payments to the named class representatives came from the defendants separately and did not reduce that fund.⁵

The Defect Behind the Case

The lawsuits centered on a design issue in All-Clad’s bonded construction. The cookware layers stainless steel around an aluminum core, and plaintiffs alleged that this created a “galvanic couple” when the pans were exposed to the chemical environment inside a dishwasher. Over repeated cycles the aluminum corroded and receded, leaving the thin outer stainless steel layer protruding along the rim. According to the complaint filed by Miranda Murray and Brandi Milford, the resulting edges could become as sharp as a razor blade, and both plaintiffs said they cut their fingers on damaged pans.⁶

For years, All-Clad had marketed the D3, D5, and LTD lines as dishwasher safe on packaging, in care manuals, and through retailers including Williams-Sonoma, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Bloomingdale’s.⁷ The company’s website at one point showed cookware inside a dishwasher and told buyers to run new pans through a cycle before first use. When customers complained, the complaint alleged, All-Clad either sent equally defective replacements, denied warranty claims, or advised them to stop using citrus-based detergent.⁶

Attorney Fees and the Objection

Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the Western District of Pennsylvania approved the settlement on February 21, 2023, calling the replacement-plus-cash option “more than fair.”³ The court approved $1,927,694.04 in attorney fees and $59,805.56 in costs for class counsel at Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, treating the fee as 29.6% of the $6.5 million total settlement value.⁸

The judge did add one caveat: he held back $503,025.43 of the fee award pending the actual claims rate.⁴ That step responded to an objection from attorney John Michael Andren of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness, who argued that class counsel stood to receive more than 80% of the settlement fund while class members would collectively receive only a few hundred thousand dollars.⁹ Andren also called the claims process “cumbersome,” citing contradictory notices, demands to resubmit evidence, and out-of-pocket shipping costs for returning damaged pans.¹⁰

On June 10, 2024, the court denied Andren’s request to tie the fee award to the claims outcome, clearing the way for the held-back fees to be released. The settling parties never publicly disclosed how many claims were paid or the total amount actually distributed to class members.⁴

Where Things Stand Now

The claims window closed on April 18, 2023, and the claims process wrapped up in early 2024, so new claims are no longer being accepted.¹ All-Clad has removed “dishwasher safe” language from packaging and its website for the affected lines and told authorized retailers to strip it from floor displays and marketing materials. The change had actually begun by mid-2020, shortly after the first case was filed, when the company started replacing dishwasher-safe messaging with a recommendation to hand-wash the cookware to “maintain the pan’s beauty.”⁷

1
Top Class Actions. All-Clad Dishwasher Safe False Advertising $4M Class Action Settlement
2
Angeion Group. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
3
Bloomberg Law. All-Clad Cookware Class Settlement Gets Judge’s Final Approval
4
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. In re All-Clad Metalcrafters LLC, Cookware Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
5
ClassAction.org. All-Clad Preliminary Approval Motion
6
Truth in Advertising. Murray v. All-Clad Metalcrafters Complaint
7
ClassAction.org. Dishwasher-Safe All-Clad Cookware Can Become Unsuitable for Use if Cleaned in Dishwasher, Class Action Alleges
8
Angeion Group. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
9
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. All-Clad Tag Page
10
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. Andren Response to Joint Notice