Is There a HexClad Lawsuit? $2.5M Settlement and Eligibility

Yes, there has been a HexClad lawsuit. The cookware company settled a California class action for $2.5 million over claims that it falsely marketed its hybrid pans as “non-toxic,” “PFAS free,” and “PFOA free” when the nonstick coating actually contained PTFE, a chemical in the PFAS family. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge granted final approval on March 9, 2026, and payments to approved claimants began on May 21, 2026.¹²

What the Lawsuit Alleged

The case, Cliburn et al. v. One Source to Market, LLC, was filed in November 2023 in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. At issue was the nonstick coating on HexClad’s original hybrid line. Plaintiffs said HexClad advertised the cookware on its website and social media as “non-toxic,” “PFOA free,” and “PFAS free,” while the pans in fact used a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating.¹

PTFE is the same polymer sold under the Teflon name, and scientists and the State of California classify it within the PFAS family, often called “forever chemicals.”³ Plaintiffs argued that a “PFAS free” label was misleading when PTFE was present, and that “PFOA free” only confirmed the absence of one banned chemical while other PFAS compounds remained in the coating. California’s Safer Food Packaging and Cookware Act (AB 1200), effective in 2023, bars manufacturers from advertising cookware as free of a specific chemical when other chemicals from the same class are present.⁴

HexClad acknowledged in a private communication with the consumer advocacy site Mamavation that its cookware used a PTFE coating, even while its public marketing described the products as free of PFAS.³ The complaint brought claims for breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, failure to warn, unjust enrichment, and violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.⁵

HexClad denied wrongdoing and said it settled to avoid the cost and risk of continued litigation. The court did not rule on the merits.⁶

The $2.5 Million Settlement

Judge David S. Cunningham III granted final approval on March 9, 2026, calling the deal “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”¹ The $2.5 million fund was allocated as follows:

Attorneys’ fees (33⅓%): $833,333
Litigation expenses: $84,837
Administration costs paid to Verita Global, LLC: $312,000
Service awards of $2,500 for each of the eight named plaintiffs, totaling $20,000
Approximately $1,249,830 remaining for class members

Individual payouts were calculated pro rata based on how much each claimant originally paid and how many total claims were submitted. No one could recover more than they spent, and any funds left after distribution were directed to the California Fire Foundation as a cy pres donation.⁷

HexClad also agreed to stop advertising any product containing PTFE or any other PFAS chemical as “PFAS free,” “PFOA free,” or “non-toxic.”¹ Separately, the company introduced a ceramic-coated line in 2024, called TerraBond, that it markets as both PTFE-free and PFAS-free. Independent testing by Light Labs reportedly found no detectable PFAS in the TerraBond products, though reviewers have criticized HexClad for “quietly” replacing the original PTFE pans without prominently announcing the change.⁸

Who Was Eligible and Whether You Can Still Claim

The settlement class covered anyone who bought qualifying HexClad cookware between February 1, 2022, and March 31, 2024. Eligible products included dozens of individual pots, pans, and woks along with bundled sets like the 13-piece Hybrid Cookware Set and the 20-piece All-In Bundle.¹

The claim filing deadline was November 14, 2025, and the opt-out deadline was August 5, 2025. Class members who did not opt out gave up the right to sue HexClad individually over the claims covered by the settlement.⁷ Payments to approved claimants began May 21, 2026.² If you didn’t file by the November 2025 deadline, you can no longer submit a claim under this settlement.

The Rolls-Royce Trademark Suit

A separate HexClad lawsuit ran alongside the PFAS case. In August 2023, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars sued HexClad’s parent company, One Source to Market, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.⁹ The complaint said HexClad’s advertising featured chef Gordon Ramsay calling the pans “the Rolls Royce of Pans,” and that the ads sometimes displayed the Rolls-Royce trademark more prominently than HexClad’s own branding. Rolls-Royce brought claims for trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition.¹⁰

HexClad filed counterclaims and argued it had not directed Ramsay to use the phrase, but the fight was brief. The parties reached a settlement in principle by November 2023, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on December 12, 2023, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either side.¹¹

1
ClassAction.org. $2.5M HexClad Settlement Reached in False Advertising Lawsuit Over Supposedly Non-Toxic Cookware
2
ClaimDepot. HexClad Settlement
3
Mamavation. HexClad Cookware PFAS PTFE Mystery
4
Consumer Reports. You Can’t Always Trust Claims on Non-Toxic Cookware
5
ClassAction.org. Cliburn et al. v. One Source to Market LLC, Amended Complaint
6
ClassAction.org. HexClad Class Action Settlement Notice
7
Dapeer Law. HexClad Cookware PFAS Class Action Settlement
8
LeafScore. Are HexClad Pans Worth It? Not if PTFE Is a Concern
9
Bloomberg Law. Rolls-Royce Sues HexClad Cookware Maker for Invoking Name in Ads
10
The Fashion Law. HexClad Fires Back at Rolls-Royce of Pans Trademark Suit With Counterclaims
11
CourtListener. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited v. One Source to Market LLC