Hershey’s Reese’s brand has faced multiple class action lawsuits alleging false advertising, though only one has made it to dismissal. The first major lawsuit claimed that Reese’s Halloween-shaped products—pumpkins, ghosts, bats, and footballs—didn’t actually have the carved designs pictured on the packaging. This case was dismissed in September 2025 when a federal judge in Florida ruled that plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue. Meanwhile, a second, still-active lawsuit alleges that Hershey products contain high levels of PFAS “forever chemicals” on their wrappers while the company marketed them as meeting the highest safety standards.
Together, these cases illustrate ongoing tensions between how candy manufacturers present their products and what consumers actually receive. The false advertising claims against Hershey represent a shift in consumer attention toward product accuracy and ingredient transparency. Unlike lawsuits focused solely on nutritional content, these cases specifically targeted misleading visual representations and undisclosed chemical contamination. For consumers who purchased Reese’s products based on packaging promises, understanding the status of these lawsuits matters both for potential compensation and for making informed purchasing decisions going forward.
Table of Contents
- What Was the Reese’s Halloween Design Lawsuit?
- The PFAS Contamination Lawsuit—An Ongoing Battle
- How Candy Packaging Regulation Works (And Where the Gaps Are)
- If You Bought These Products, What Are Your Options?
- The Challenge of Proving “Injury” in Packaging Cases
- What Other Candy Manufacturers Face
- The Future of Food Packaging Transparency
- Conclusion
What Was the Reese’s Halloween Design Lawsuit?
In May 2024, a class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida claiming that Reese’s Halloween-themed candies were falsely advertised. The plaintiffs alleged that products shaped like pumpkins, ghosts, bats, and footballs didn’t actually feature the intricate carved designs shown on the packaging. Instead, consumers claimed the candies were largely smooth, with minimal or missing design details that were prominently displayed in marketing materials. For example, a Reese’s Pumpkin might have been pictured with a detailed jack-o’-lantern face on the wrapper, but the actual candy was plain or barely carved. This discrepancy between the visual promise and the physical product formed the basis of the false advertising claim.
The lawsuit sought over $5 million in damages and attorney’s fees under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs argued that consumers were misled about the quality and appearance of the products they were purchasing, and that Hershey knowingly used misleading imagery to increase sales. The case gained significant media attention, with coverage from NPR and CBS News highlighting the disconnect between packaging images and the actual candies. However, this high-profile case ultimately faced a significant obstacle: the question of whether consumers had actually been harmed in a way the law recognizes. The case was dismissed on September 19, 2025, when the federal judge granted Hershey’s motion to dismiss. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, meaning they couldn’t demonstrate a concrete injury that gave them the legal right to bring the lawsuit. This was a technical but decisive victory for Hershey, one that doesn’t necessarily mean the packaging claims were false—only that the court found the plaintiffs hadn’t met the legal threshold required to pursue the case.
The PFAS Contamination Lawsuit—An Ongoing Battle
While the design lawsuit faded, a more serious claim emerged. On October 29, 2024, two separate class action lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania alleging that Hershey products contained dangerous levels of PFAS—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment or the human body. The two cases were Jonathan Parish v. The Hershey Company (Case No. 1:24-cv-01868-CCC) and Bernadette Beekman v. The Hershey Company (Case No. 1:24-cv-02234-CCC). These lawsuits targeted a broader range of Hershey and Reese’s products than the Halloween design case, including Hershey Milk Chocolate Bars, Hershey Cookies n’ Cream Bars, Hershey’s Kisses, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, Reese’s Pieces, Almond Joy, Mounds, and KitKat Bars.
The allegations are based on independent lab testing conducted in 2024 that detected high levels of organic fluorine—a marker for PFAS—on candy wrappers. According to the lawsuits, Hershey had marketed these products as meeting the “highest quality, safety and sustainability standards,” while allegedly knowing or failing to disclose the presence of these chemicals. PFAS chemicals are linked to serious health concerns, including liver damage, thyroid disease, and increased cholesterol levels. The fact that these chemicals were detected on product wrappers is particularly concerning because they can migrate from packaging into food, meaning consumers may be ingesting them with every bite. This represents a fundamentally different type of false advertising claim—not about misleading images, but about concealed health risks. Hershey responded by filing a motion to dismiss on June 27, 2025, characterizing the claims as “a house of cards.” As of July 2025, the consolidated PFAS lawsuit remains pending, with no ruling yet on whether the case will proceed. This ongoing status means the allegations have not been proven, but also that Hershey has not won dismissal on the merits. Consumers awaiting resolution of this case face uncertainty about both the actual contamination levels and whether they might be entitled to compensation.
How Candy Packaging Regulation Works (And Where the Gaps Are)
The Reese’s cases highlight a significant gap in how the food industry is regulated, particularly regarding packaging materials. While the FDA regulates food ingredients extensively, the oversight of packaging materials—especially regarding chemicals that might migrate into products—is less rigorous. Manufacturers are generally allowed to use food-contact materials without pre-approval from the FDA, operating under a “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) framework that relies heavily on industry self-assessment. This means that unless a chemical is explicitly banned or restricted, companies can use it in packaging without detailed government scrutiny. The PFAS lawsuit essentially challenges this system, arguing that Hershey should have known about—or disclosed—contamination risks even if they weren’t technically required to. The visual misrepresentation issue raised in the Halloween design lawsuit points to a different regulatory weakness: the lack of clear standards for what constitutes misleading packaging imagery.
There’s no law that explicitly requires candy packaging to match the actual appearance of the product inside with photographic accuracy. Manufacturers are permitted to use stylized, enhanced, or artistic representations, leaving consumers to navigate a gray area between promotional imagery and reality. The dismissal of the Reese’s design case on standing grounds rather than on the merits suggests that courts may be reluctant to intervene in these image-versus-reality disputes without a clearer legal framework. For consumers, this regulatory landscape means relying on class action litigation and public pressure to address packaging concerns. Unlike European countries, which have implemented stricter regulations on PFAS in food contact materials, the United states has taken a more reactive approach—waiting for lawsuits to emerge before scrutinizing industry practices. The Hershey cases represent an attempt to fill this regulatory gap through the legal system, but their outcomes will likely shape how aggressively courts are willing to address similar claims from other manufacturers.
If You Bought These Products, What Are Your Options?
For the dismissed Halloween design lawsuit, no settlement was reached because the case never advanced past the dismissal motion. Consumers who purchased Reese’s Halloween-shaped candies between May 2024 and September 2025 (when the lawsuit was filed through dismissal) have no compensation mechanism from this particular case. However, the legal ruling doesn’t mean the packaging claims were definitively false—only that the court found the plaintiffs couldn’t prove they had standing to sue. If you feel you were deceived by the packaging imagery, your options are limited to filing complaints with the FTC or state consumer protection agencies, though these typically don’t result in individual compensation. The PFAS lawsuit, by contrast, is still active and could potentially lead to a settlement. If you purchased any of the affected products (Hershey Milk Chocolate Bar, Hershey Cookies n’ Cream Bar, Hershey’s Kisses, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, Reese’s Pieces, Almond Joy, Mounds, or KitKat Bar) after October 29, 2024 (the filing date of the lawsuit), you might be part of the class if the case proceeds.
However, because the case is still pending, there’s no settlement notice or claim process available yet. No class has been certified, and no timeline for resolution has been announced. Consumers interested in following this lawsuit should monitor legal tracking websites or subscribe to updates from class action alert services to learn when—or if—a settlement is reached. The challenge with both lawsuits is timing and proof. For the design case, the dismissal means it’s unlikely to be revived. For the PFAS case, you’d need to have purchased the products and potentially retained receipts as proof, though many class actions allow claims based on submission of a sworn affidavit if receipts aren’t available. The comparison between the two cases is instructive: visual misrepresentation proved difficult to litigate, while claims about chemical contamination have survived the initial dismissal motion, suggesting courts view health-related false advertising more seriously than aesthetic mismatches.
The Challenge of Proving “Injury” in Packaging Cases
The Halloween design lawsuit’s dismissal on standing grounds reveals a critical hurdle in packaging false advertising cases: proving that consumers were actually injured. The judge determined that even if consumers bought Reese’s based on misleading packaging imagery, they couldn’t demonstrate concrete harm. After all, they received a chocolate and peanut butter candy—just not one with elaborate carved designs. The candy was still edible, still tasted the same, and arguably still served its intended purpose. This raises a troubling question for consumer protection: if visual misrepresentation alone doesn’t constitute injury, what does? This standing problem doesn’t apply to the PFAS lawsuit in the same way, because PFAS contamination involves a potential health risk—a tangible harm that courts can recognize more easily than aesthetic disappointment. However, the PFAS case faces a different challenge: proving that Hershey actually knew about the contamination and chose to conceal it, rather than being unaware or assuming the contamination was within acceptable limits.
Hershey’s motion to dismiss argued that the claims were based on speculation about the company’s knowledge and intent, which is a common defense in false advertising cases. The fact that the case hasn’t been dismissed on these grounds (as of July 2025) suggests the judge found enough evidence of Hershey’s potential knowledge to proceed, but this will likely remain a contested issue throughout the litigation. A critical limitation of both cases is that consumers face significant evidentiary burdens. For the design case, even if it hadn’t been dismissed, plaintiffs would have needed to prove they saw the package, relied on the imagery when purchasing, and were materially deceived. For the PFAS case, plaintiffs must show not just that the contamination exists, but that Hershey’s marketing claims about “highest safety standards” were false or misleading when made. These burdens exist to prevent frivolous lawsuits, but they also mean that even genuinely misled consumers may struggle to succeed in court.
What Other Candy Manufacturers Face
The Hershey lawsuits have broader implications for the entire candy industry. If the PFAS lawsuit succeeds, it could trigger similar investigations and litigation against other major manufacturers who use comparable packaging materials. Many food companies rely on wax-coated or polymer-based wrappers that may contain PFAS, raising questions about industry-wide practices rather than Hershey-specific negligence.
Some manufacturers may already be aware of PFAS risks but lack clear guidance on acceptable levels or disclosure requirements, creating a murky middle ground where regulatory action hasn’t caught up with scientific understanding. The visual misrepresentation issue, though dismissed in Reese’s case, has proven more successful in litigation against other companies in different contexts. For example, lawsuits over misleading food imagery have proceeded in some jurisdictions, particularly when they involve specific quantitative claims (like portion sizes or ingredient content) rather than purely aesthetic representations. The Reese’s case may simply have been a step too far in relying on design imagery alone, suggesting that future packaging-related lawsuits will likely combine visual misrepresentation with more concrete claims about missing ingredients or inaccurate nutritional information.
The Future of Food Packaging Transparency
The outcome of the Hershey PFAS lawsuit will likely influence regulatory and industry practices around food-contact chemicals. If the case results in a settlement, it could set a precedent that manufacturers must disclose or actively address PFAS contamination in packaging, even if not legally required to do so currently. Alternatively, a dismissal or defendant victory would reinforce the current regulatory status quo, where manufacturers have minimal obligation to inform consumers about chemical presence in packaging. Either way, consumer awareness of PFAS in everyday products appears to be growing, potentially creating market pressure for manufacturers to adopt alternatives regardless of legal liability.
Looking forward, the distinction between these two Reese’s cases reflects a broader evolution in false advertising law. Claims rooted in health and safety risks are gaining traction, while purely aesthetic or representational mismatches face higher hurdles. For consumers, this means that complaints about product appearance alone are less likely to succeed in class action litigation, but claims about hidden health risks have more promise. As the PFAS lawsuit continues to develop, it may serve as a model for similar claims against other manufacturers, reshaping how food companies approach packaging material selection and consumer communication.
Conclusion
The Hershey Reese’s false advertising lawsuits represent two different approaches to holding manufacturers accountable for product misrepresentation. The Halloween design case, dismissed in September 2025, highlighted the legal difficulty of proving injury based on packaging imagery alone. Meanwhile, the ongoing PFAS contamination lawsuit, still pending as of July 2025, addresses a more serious concern—potential health risks from chemicals in food contact materials.
While consumers who purchased Halloween-shaped Reese’s products have no legal recourse from the dismissed case, those who bought the broader range of affected Hershey products may have potential claims in the PFAS litigation, though no settlement or claim process currently exists. For consumers navigating these cases, the key takeaway is to stay informed about pending litigation that might affect products you’ve purchased. Monitor class action tracking websites for updates on the PFAS lawsuit, and be aware that your eligibility to participate may depend on purchase dates and documentation. More broadly, these lawsuits underscore the ongoing gap between what food companies promise on packaging and what they’re required to disclose about product appearance and ingredient safety—a gap that litigation continues to probe, even if court victories remain uncertain.