Full Breakdown
Lawsuit Over Non-Stick Cookware Advertising: Groupe SEB USA and Meyer Corporation vs. Caraway Home
5/21/2026, 3:09:41 AM
Core Allegations and Legal Action
On February 13, 2026, Groupe SEB USA (maker of T-Fal and All-Clad) and Meyer Corporation (owner of Farberware, Rachael Ray, Anolon) filed a 34-page complaint in the Southern District of New York against Caraway Home, a ceramic-coated cookware startup launched in 2019. The plaintiffs allege false advertising, commercial disparagement, trade libel, and unjust enrichment, asserting that Caraway’s marketing falsely labels PTFE-coated non-stick cookware as “toxic,” cancer-causing, and laden with “forever chemicals” such as PFAS.
Background: PTFE, PFAS, and Advertising Disputes
PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) is the dominant non-stick coating used by the plaintiffs’ brands. The complaint emphasizes that PTFE is “chemically inert, practically insoluble, non-bioavailable, and non-toxic,” that the FDA authorizes its use in food-contact applications, and that PTFE degradation cannot occur below 500 °F—temperatures beyond normal cooking. In 2025, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau concluded Caraway “did not meet its burden of providing a reasonable basis for claims that competing non-stick cookware is toxic.” Caraway agreed to pull certain ads but, according to the complaint, many remained live and new ones appeared in January 2026. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has also rejected calls for warning labels on PTFE cookware.
Key Players
- Groupe SEB USA – Global cookware conglomerate, plaintiff.
- Meyer Corporation – Owner of multiple non-stick brands, plaintiff.
- Caraway Home – Ceramic-coated cookware company, defendant; founded by Jordan Nathan.
- Jordan Nathan – Founder and CEO of Caraway Home.
- Carmine Zarlenga – Partner at Mayer Brown, representing the plaintiffs.
- National Advertising Division (NAD) – Independent adjudicator of advertising claims.
Data & Statistics
- Six U.S. states have enacted bans on PFAS in cookware; more than 20 states have introduced protocols governing PFAS use.
- The lawsuit seeks an injunction, corrective advertising, and disgorgement of Caraway’s profits, though specific monetary figures are not disclosed.
Official Statements & Responses
Groupe SEB issued a statement emphasizing its expertise across coating technologies and condemning “fear-based marketing” that conflicts with NAD rulings, calling for competition based on innovation and factual information. Meyer Corporation’s public comment echoed concerns about misleading health claims. Caraway’s leadership described the suit as “meritless” and framed it as a “business tactic to regain market share,” asserting that its advertising does not name competitors and that it aims to inform consumers. Plaintiffs cite the NAD decision and FDA approvals to support their position that PTFE cookware poses no health risk under normal use.
Criticism & Opposition
Caraway argues that the lawsuit attempts to stifle a challenger brand that has captured market share by promoting “healthy, PFAS-free” products. The company plans a public campaign to counter the plaintiffs’ claims and highlights broader consumer trends toward organic and non-toxic household goods. Critics of the suit contend that the plaintiffs’ approach may suppress legitimate consumer information about material safety.
Verbatim Quotes
- “This complaint is based on years of examples of false advertising used to scare consumers with misleading information when it is well known that non-stick cookware is safe and poses no health risks under normal conditions,” — Carmine Zarlenga, Mayer Brown.
- “a meritless lawsuit” — Jordan Nathan, Caraway Home.
- “In this context, we cannot accept that some companies rely on fear-based marketing or misleading claims to promote their products, particularly when such practices have already been subject to NAD rulings. We believe that fair competition should be driven by innovation, quality, and clear, fact-based information for consumers.” — Groupe SEB statement.
- “chemically inert, practically insoluble, non-bioavailable, and non-toxic;” — Complaint excerpt.
- “never called out any of their brand names” — Jordan Nathan, Caraway Home.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The complaint notes that a hyperlink on Caraway’s site labeled “American Cancer Society” directed users to an unrelated American Academy of Pediatrics press release that does not discuss PTFE risks, whereas the actual ACS states no proven human risk from PTFE cookware. Caraway’s continued use of disputed ads after the NAD recommendation creates a factual gap between the plaintiffs’ claim of compliance and observed advertising practices.
What’s Next
The plaintiffs seek a court-ordered injunction prohibiting Caraway from asserting that PTFE cookware is toxic, mandatory corrective advertising, and monetary disgorgement. Caraway plans to launch a public information campaign and contest the claims in court. The case may influence future regulatory scrutiny of cookware advertising and consumer-product labeling.