Estimated reading time: 8 minutes.
Key facts
- Case: Talbot v. The Lagunitas Brewing Company, No. 3:26-cv-12965, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, filed November 2, 2026.
- Defendant: The Lagunitas Brewing Company of Petaluma, California, a wholly owned subsidiary of Heineken N.V. since 2017.
- What is alleged: Lagunitas beer contains PFAS, often called "forever chemicals," at levels the plaintiff compares to federal drinking water limits, and the company did not tell buyers.
- Proposed class: All people in the United States who bought Lagunitas beer that, without their knowledge, contained PFAS at levels the EPA has found pose a risk to human health.
- Claims: California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment.
- Status: A newly filed proposed class action. No court has ruled on the claims, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement or claim form.
In this article
- What the lawsuit says
- Who Lagunitas is
- What PFAS are
- The testing behind the complaint
- How the EPA limits work
- Why the plaintiff says Lagunitas knew
- The legal claims and what the plaintiff wants
- What remains unproven
- What happens next
- Frequently asked questions
A San Francisco man has filed a proposed class action against Lagunitas Brewing Company, claiming that testing he arranged found per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, in Lagunitas IPA at levels several times higher than the federal limits for drinking water. The complaint says the brewer should have known and failed to warn customers.
The case matters to anyone who has bought Lagunitas beer in the United States, because the proposed class is nationwide. It is also one of the first lawsuits to apply drinking water standards for these chemicals to a specific beer brand. Every description of Lagunitas's conduct below is an allegation from the complaint.
What the lawsuit says
Plaintiff Nathaniel Talbot, a San Francisco resident, filed the complaint on November 2, 2026, through the law firms KalielGold PLLC and Wolf Popper LLP. He says he bought Lagunitas beer regularly at grocery stores and a 7-Eleven in San Francisco.
The complaint's central claim is that Lagunitas "brewed, packaged, marketed, and sold the Beer, in a uniform way that fails to disclose the fact that it contains levels of PFAS that the EPA has found pose health risks." Talbot says he would not have bought the beer if he had known and would have chosen a competing brand instead.
He also says he still likes the brand. The complaint describes Lagunitas as "an iconic regional brand associated with positive local memories" and says he would buy it again if he could rely on it being free of PFAS.
Who Lagunitas is
According to the complaint, Lagunitas was founded in 1993 by Tony Magee in the town of Lagunitas, California, and moved to Petaluma in Sonoma County in 1995. Since August 2024, all Lagunitas beer has been brewed at its Petaluma brewery, the complaint says.
Heineken N.V., the Dutch brewing company, bought a 50% stake in 2015 and the rest in 2017. Its best-known products are Lagunitas IPA and a wheat ale called Little Sumpin' Sumpin'. The complaint says Lagunitas produced 706,000 barrels of beer in 2024, and those two beers made up 67% of that volume.
No refund program exists This is a newly filed lawsuit. There is no settlement, no claim form and no money available to Lagunitas buyers at this stage.
What PFAS are
PFAS are a large family of man-made chemicals used for their resistance to water, oil and stains. They are called "forever chemicals" because they break down very slowly in the environment and can build up in the body over time.
The complaint focuses on two of them. PFOA stands for perfluorooctanoic acid, and PFNA stands for perfluorononanoic acid. The complaint says the EPA and state regulators have found that PFAS exposure can harm the immune, cardiovascular and reproductive systems and can raise the risk of cancer.
Those are general health findings about PFAS exposure. The complaint does not claim that Talbot or anyone else was made sick by Lagunitas beer. Its claimed injury is economic, meaning people paid for a product they say they would not have bought.
The testing behind the complaint
The complaint says Talbot hired a laboratory in Bend, Oregon, to test Lagunitas IPA using a version of EPA Method 533, a standard lab procedure for measuring PFAS in drinking water. It says four Lagunitas samples were bought from retail stores in different parts of the country, along with one can of Modelo Especial used as a comparison.
The complaint describes results for three of the Lagunitas samples:
- A tallboy can of Lagunitas IPA bought in Eugene, Oregon, and tested in April 2026, which it says contained 100 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFNA.
- A tallboy can bought in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and tested in June 2026, which it says contained 67 ppt of PFOA and 58 ppt of PFNA.
- A bottle bought in Green Bay and tested in June 2026, which it says contained 44 ppt of PFOA.
Averaging the samples the way the EPA averages water results, the complaint reports 27.75 ppt of PFOA and 39.5 ppt of PFNA. It describes those figures as 694% and 395% of the EPA's limits. The Modelo sample, tested in September 2026, did not contain PFAS the EPA has found risky, according to the complaint.
These are the plaintiff's own test results. They have not been reviewed by a court or confirmed by Lagunitas or a regulator.
How the EPA limits work
On April 10, 2024, the EPA finalized the first national drinking water limits for six PFAS. The enforceable limit, called a maximum contaminant level, is 4.0 ppt for PFOA and 10 ppt for PFNA. The EPA also set a non-enforceable health goal of zero for PFOA. Compliance is measured by running annual averages, which is the method the complaint borrowed.
These rules apply to public water systems, which must finish initial monitoring by 2027 and meet the limits by 2029. The complaint compares beer results to these water standards. It does not point to a federal PFAS limit written specifically for beer.
The rules are also changing. On May 18, 2026, the EPA proposed keeping the PFOA and PFOS limits, with an option to give water systems until 2031 to comply, and proposed rescinding the limits for PFNA and three other PFAS. The complaint acknowledges that proposal and argues the PFNA change is procedural.
Water limits, not beer limits The 4 ppt and 10 ppt figures in the complaint are EPA drinking water standards. Whether they are a fair benchmark for beer is likely to be disputed.
Why the plaintiff says Lagunitas knew
The complaint gives two reasons it says Lagunitas knew or should have known about PFAS in its beer.
The first is a study published on April 24, 2025, in the journal Environmental Science and Technology by scientists affiliated with RTI International. Titled "Hold My Beer," it tested 23 beers for 17 PFAS. The American Chemical Society said the researchers found PFAS in 95% of the beers tested and a strong link between PFAS in local tap water and in locally brewed beer.
The study did not name the beers. The complaint says one sample, labeled Beer 4, was brewed in Sonoma County, and argues it was likely Lagunitas because Lagunitas is the county's largest brewery and its only national one. That identification is the plaintiff's inference. The complaint says Beer 4 averaged 3.187 ppt of PFOA across five measurements, just below the EPA limit.
The second reason is a Maine Department of Environmental Protection list, released August 14, 2023, of manufacturers granted extensions to a state PFAS reporting deadline. The complaint says Lagunitas was on that list and argues that shows it was aware of PFAS reporting duties.
The legal claims and what the plaintiff wants
The complaint brings four counts under California law:
- The Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which bars deceptive practices in consumer sales.
- The Unfair Competition Law, which covers unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices.
- Breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the California Commercial Code. That warranty is an automatic promise that goods are fit for their ordinary use.
- Unjust enrichment, which asks that money gained unfairly be returned.
Talbot asks the court to certify the class, declare the conduct unlawful, order Lagunitas to stop it, and award damages, restitution and attorneys' fees. He also demands a jury trial. The complaint says he will send Lagunitas a pre-suit notice letter under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and may seek damages, including punitive damages, if the company does not fix the issue within the time allowed.
Carl L. Stine of Wolf Popper told Courthouse News that it "appears that Lagunitas knowingly sells beer that contains levels of PFAS that the EPA has found to pose health risks." A Lagunitas representative did not immediately respond to Courthouse News's request for comment.
What remains unproven
The case is at its earliest stage. Key questions include whether the plaintiff's testing method is reliable for beer, whether one lab's results from a handful of cans reflect Lagunitas beer generally, whether drinking water limits are a valid standard for a beverage, and whether the anonymous study sample was in fact Lagunitas. The complaint also does not say how the PFAS would have entered the beer.
Lagunitas has not filed a response, and no court has found that its beer contains unsafe levels of PFAS or that it misled anyone.
Allegations, not findings The test results, the study link and the claim that Lagunitas knew are the plaintiff's allegations. A court has not ruled on any of them.
What happens next
Lagunitas must be served with the complaint before it responds, typically by answering or by asking the court to dismiss some or all claims. If the case survives, the plaintiff would later ask the court to certify the nationwide class.
For other cases open to consumers now, see our list of class action cases you can join. This article is for information only and is not legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Lagunitas PFAS lawsuit about?
A proposed class action filed November 2, 2026, claims Lagunitas beer contains PFAS at levels above EPA drinking water limits and that the brewer failed to disclose it. Lagunitas has not responded in court.
Which Lagunitas beers were tested?
The complaint describes tests of Lagunitas IPA in cans and a bottle bought in Oregon and Wisconsin. The proposed class covers Lagunitas beer purchases generally.
Is Lagunitas beer unsafe to drink?
No regulator or court has made that finding. The complaint compares the plaintiff's own test results to drinking water limits, and those claims have not been tested in court.
Who is in the proposed class?
All people in the United States who bought Lagunitas beer that contained PFAS at levels the EPA has found risky, excluding Lagunitas and its affiliates. A judge has not certified the class.
Can I get money from the Lagunitas lawsuit?
Not at this time. There is no settlement or claim process. Money would only become available if the case settles or the plaintiff wins.
Who owns Lagunitas?
Heineken N.V. bought half of Lagunitas in 2015 and the rest in 2017, making it a wholly owned subsidiary, according to the complaint.
