Lagunitas beer PFAS forever chemicals lawsuit (Talbot v. Lagunitas Brewing)

A San Francisco beer drinker has filed a proposed class action saying Lagunitas beer contains PFAS, the so-called "forever chemicals," at levels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found pose health risks in drinking water, and that the brewery never told buyers.

The case is Talbot v. The Lagunitas Brewing Company, No. 3:26-cv-12965, filed November 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It asks for refunds and damages for people across the United States who bought Lagunitas beer for personal use. It does not seek compensation for illness.

The claims rest on lab tests the plaintiff paid for and on a 2025 scientific study. Lagunitas has not responded in court, and nothing in the complaint has been proven. There is no settlement, payment or claim form.

The Lagunitas Brewing Company is the brewer behind Lagunitas IPA and Little Sumpin' Sumpin' Ale. The complaint says it was founded in 1993 in Lagunitas, California, moved to Petaluma in Sonoma County in 1995, and has brewed all of its beer at its Petaluma brewery since August 2024. Its beer is sold in grocery and convenience stores nationwide and in other countries.

Heineken N.V., the Dutch beer company, bought half of Lagunitas in 2015 and the rest in 2017, making Lagunitas a wholly owned subsidiary, according to the complaint. Heineken is not named as a defendant.

Nathaniel Talbot is the named plaintiff. He is a San Francisco resident who says he regularly bought Lagunitas beer at local grocery stores and a 7-Eleven.

KalielGold PLLC (Sophia G. Gold) and Wolf Popper LLP (Carl L. Stine and Samuel Coffin) represent him.

RTI International is the research organization whose scientists published the 2025 beer study the complaint relies on. The EPA sets the drinking-water limits the complaint uses as its yardstick. Neither is a party.

According to the complaint and the sources it cites:

• April 10, 2024: The EPA finalized enforceable drinking-water limits for several PFAS, including 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and 10 ppt for PFNA, according to the EPA.
• April 2025: RTI International researchers published a peer-reviewed study in Environmental Science & Technology that tested 23 beers for 17 kinds of PFAS. The study identified beers only by where they were brewed. The complaint says one, brewed in Sonoma County, averaged 3.187 ppt of PFOA across five measurements, with one reading above 4 ppt.
• May 2025: The American Chemical Society publicized the study, saying PFAS turned up in 95% of the beers tested and calling for greater awareness among brewers, consumers and regulators.
• April to June 2026: A lab in Bend, Oregon tested Lagunitas IPA bought in Oregon and Wisconsin for the plaintiff, using an adapted version of EPA Method 533.
• May 18, 2026: The EPA proposed rescinding its PFNA drinking-water rule, saying the earlier rulemaking followed an unlawful procedure.
• September 2026: The plaintiff tested one can of Modelo Especial for comparison.
• November 2, 2026: The lawsuit was filed in San Francisco.

The complaint describes three results: a can from Eugene, Oregon with 100 ppt of PFNA; a can from Green Bay, Wisconsin with 67 ppt of PFOA and 58 ppt of PFNA; and a bottle from Green Bay with 44 ppt of PFOA. Averaged across four samples, it reports 27.75 ppt of PFOA and 39.5 ppt of PFNA, which it calls 694% and 395% of the EPA limits. It says the Modelo sample contained none of the PFAS the EPA has found risky.

The plaintiff alleges that Lagunitas sold its beer "in a uniform way that fails to disclose" PFAS at levels the EPA has found pose health risks. He argues the company knew or should have known because the 2025 study likely tested a Lagunitas beer and because Lagunitas appeared on a 2023 Maine Department of Environmental Protection list of manufacturers granted more time to report PFAS in products. He says he would not have bought the beer had he known.

The complaint brings four claims: violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act and California Commercial Code, and unjust enrichment.

His lawyer, Carl Stine, told Courthouse News that Lagunitas "should immediately fix this problem and pay damages to its customers."

Lagunitas did not respond to a request for comment from Courthouse News. As of November 3, 2026, no court response had been reported. Class Action Pulse found no public statement from Lagunitas or Heineken.

Two limits matter here. The EPA figures are standards for public drinking water, not beer, and the complaint does not cite a federal PFAS limit written for beer. And the test results were arranged by the plaintiff and have not been tested in court.

Nothing has been decided. The court has not ruled on whether the claims can go forward, whether the testing is reliable, or whether a class should be certified. Lagunitas has not been found liable for anything.

The complaint proposes one nationwide class. The court has not approved it.

• Who: All persons in the United States who bought Lagunitas beer that, without their knowledge, contained PFAS at levels the EPA has found pose a health risk.
• Purpose: Purchases for personal, family or household use.
• Products: The class covers Lagunitas beer generally, but the testing described involved only Lagunitas IPA.
• Excluded: Lagunitas, its parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, and their directors and officers.

No proof of illness is required by the class definition as written, because the case seeks money for purchases, not injuries. The plaintiff may change the definition later.

1. Keep receipts or loyalty-card records showing Lagunitas purchases, if you have them.
2. Note where and when you usually bought the beer and which styles.
3. Watch for official notice. If a class is certified or a settlement is reached, notice would explain any claim process.
4. Ask your own doctor about any health concerns. This lawsuit does not seek compensation for illness.

You can also use the form on this page to ask about the case. A Class Action Pulse inquiry is only an inquiry. It does not join the lawsuit or create a lawyer relationship.

Nothing is available now. The complaint asks for restitution of money paid, damages including punitive damages, and an order stopping the challenged sales practices. Damages under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act depend on a pre-suit notice letter the plaintiff says he will send. Any payment would require a court-approved settlement or a judgment.

• November 2, 2026: Complaint filed.
• Next: Lagunitas must be served and respond.

There is no claim, opt-out or objection deadline. You keep all your rights. Statutes of limitations limit how long claims can be brought, so the timing of past purchases may matter.

• PFAS: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a family of human-made chemicals that break down very slowly, which is why they are called "forever chemicals."
• PFOA and PFNA: Two specific PFAS. The complaint's test results focus on these.
• Parts per trillion (ppt): A measure of tiny concentrations. One ppt is one part chemical per trillion parts liquid.
• Maximum contaminant level (MCL): An enforceable limit for a contaminant in public drinking water.
• EPA Method 533: An EPA lab method for measuring PFAS in drinking water.
• Implied warranty: A legal promise, automatic with most sales, that a product is fit for its ordinary use.
• Class certification: A court's decision that a case may proceed on behalf of a group.

Lagunitas will likely respond with an answer or a motion to dismiss, which asks the judge to throw out some or all claims. If claims survive, the parties would exchange evidence, and the plaintiff would later ask the court to certify the class. Questions about testing methods, the drinking-water comparison and the EPA's pending PFNA rescission could all matter. Class Action Pulse will update this page as the case develops.

This page relies on the complaint as posted by Courthouse News, Courthouse News reporting, the EPA's PFAS rescission page and the American Chemical Society's 2025 release. Test results and descriptions of the 2025 study come from the complaint. The study did not name Lagunitas; the link is the plaintiff's inference. The complaint describes three of four sample results and gives "April and July 2026" in one place and April and June elsewhere. No judge assignment was confirmed.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.