HexClad-style hybrid pans: PTFE, PFAS claims, and the class-action settlement

The short answer

HexClad-style hybrid pans put a laser-etched stainless lattice over PTFE-family nonstick valleys — stainless peaks with fluoropolymer fill, not a bare-metal pan.[1][2] A California court granted final approval of a $2.5 million settlement in Cliburn v. One Source to Market (d/b/a HexClad) and permanently enjoins marketing PTFE- or PFAS-containing products as “PFAS free,” “PFOA free,” or “non-toxic”; HexClad denied wrongdoing.[3][4][14] Prefer coating-free stainless or iron on our rankings if you want to skip PTFE entirely.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Affiliate status never changes rank. 0 paid placements. This is not medical or legal advice.

What HexClad-style hybrid pans actually are

A hybrid pan in this category is a clad metal body with a patterned cook surface: raised stainless ridges and recessed nonstick coating. HexClad’s own product marketing describes patented hybrid technology that “combines stainless steel with nonstick,” and our HexClad Hybrid Frying Pan ranking entry scores the design as hybrid PTFE — stainless lattice over PTFE-family valleys — not bare stainless.[1][2]

That architecture explains the dual pitch shoppers hear: metal-utensil durability on the peaks, easy release in the valleys. It also explains the materials score. On our methodology, hybrid PTFE sits at 3.5/10 for materials — above traditional PTFE pans, well below bare stainless, carbon steel, bare cast iron, and enameled iron — because the food-contact system still depends on a fluoropolymer coating in the recesses.[2]

• Stainless peaks: the visible hex / laser pattern that can take metal tools more gracefully than a flat nonstick film.
• Nonstick valleys: PTFE-family coating where eggs and fish release — the part that makes “hybrid” feel like nonstick.
• Not the same as ceramic nonstick: ceramic sol-gel coatings are a different chemistry class (see our ceramic nonstick journal).

What PTFE and PFAS mean when you read the box

PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) is a fluoropolymer long used in nonstick cookware. The U.S. EPA describes PFAS as a large class of persistent fluorinated substances; PTFE sits inside that broad family as a polymer form of PFAS.[6] U.S. food-contact rules still authorize certain perfluorocarbon resins (the PTFE-family materials in 21 CFR 177.1550) for repeated-use articles and coatings that contact food, subject to identity, optional-component, and extractives limits in that regulation — which is not the same as a shopper-facing “PFAS-free” label.[7]

Regulatory “authorized use” is not the same as a shopper’s “PFAS-free pan” question. Ecology Center’s FTIR report found PTFE on 79% of the nonstick cooking pans it tested, and stressed that “PFOA-free” is not “PFAS-free.”[8] Consumer Reports’ PFAS cookware testing likewise found that a PTFE pan marketed PFOA-free still showed measurable PFOA and other PFAS in scraped coating samples, while tested ceramic PTFE-free pans had none of CR’s 96 analytes detected.[9]

For a hybrid pan, the practical takeaway is narrow: if the valleys are PTFE, the pan is not a PFAS-free cook surface in the polymer sense — even when packaging historically used softer phrases like PFOA-free or non-toxic.[2][8][9]

The Cliburn settlement: $2.5M fund and a permanent marketing injunction

Cliburn et al. v. One Source to Market, LLC d/b/a HexClad Cookware (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 23STCV28390) alleged false advertising of certain hybrid products as non-toxic and free from PFOA/PFAS.[4][5] Settlement documents and orders posted on the official settlement site describe a $2.5 million non-reversionary fund and court final approval of that settlement amount.[3][14]

The settlement website states HexClad denied any and all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage.[4] The settlement agreement likewise says Defendant vigorously denied the claims and denied wrongdoing while agreeing to settle.[10] That denial matters for fair reading: a settlement with injunctive marketing limits is not a court finding that every historical ad was false.

What the orders do say clearly is prospective relief. An order granting final approval permanently enjoins Defendant from marketing or advertising any product containing PTFE or any chemical in the PFAS family as “PFAS free,” “PFOA free,” or “non-toxic,” pursuant to Settlement Agreement ¶ 46.[3] The agreement’s injunctive section matches that PTFE/PFAS-product ban on those three claim phrases, while allowing non-PTFE products (for example ceramic coatings without PTFE) to use some of that language under the deal’s terms.[10]

ClassAction.org’s June 2025 case summary lists covered hybrid pans and sets purchased roughly February 1, 2022 through March 31, 2024, and notes the same marketing stop for PTFE-containing products.[5] Use the settlement site for claim status; this journal is explanatory, not a claims desk.

TerraBond bakeware: a PFAS-free claim is still a claim

In September 2026 HexClad announced HexClad Hybrid Bakeware built around “a new formulation of PFAS-free TerraBond™ ceramic nonstick,” per the company’s PR Newswire release.[1] That is brand marketing for a ceramic bakeware line — not a Light Labs panel, Ecology Center FTIR row, Consumer Reports tox scrape, or Lead Safe Mama XRF that we can score as independent lab evidence on this site.

We treat TerraBond the same way we treat other PTFE-free ceramic claims: chemistry class can differ from hybrid PTFE pans, but durability and metals questions still need published tests for the exact SKU. Until independent lab citations exist for those bakeware pieces, we will not invent ppm tables or “verified PFAS-free” language. Hybrid stovetop pans with PTFE valleys remain in our hybrid_ptfe materials band.[2]

How the hybrid PTFE class compares on our seed ranking

Our seed set already places HexClad below coating-free metals and below ceramic nonstick for materials preference, and it marks lab evidence as “no published lab data” for the hybrid SKUs ranked here — we found no LSM XRF, Light Labs PFAS panel, Ecology Center product row, or CR tox panel specifically cited for HexClad in the seed dataset.[2]

Scores come from our published materials table; they are preference weights for a plastic-free / low-fluoropolymer thesis, not medical risk scores.

Plastic-free alternatives already on our rankings

If the settlement’s marketing limits clarified that PTFE hybrids should not be sold as PFAS-free or non-toxic, the shopping move for PTFE-avoiders is still the same: buy a pan that does not use fluoropolymer nonstick in the first place.

1. Made In Stainless Clad Frying Pan — bare stainless materials class with cited Light Labs PFAS panels on submitted cookware samples.[11][12]
2. Staub enameled cast iron — PTFE-free enamel cook surface; gray cocotte XRF cited as ND for Pb/As/Cd/Hg on the tested piece (colorways can differ).[13]
3. Le Creuset Signature Dutch Oven — same enameled-iron materials band; published XRFs show color-dependent cadmium/lead findings, covered in our enamel XRF journal.
4. For a coating-free materials comparison (stainless vs bare cast iron vs carbon steel), see our companion post on coating-free stainless, cast iron, and carbon steel.

Ceramic nonstick can be a PTFE-avoidance bridge with its own durability and XRF caveats — start with Is ceramic nonstick actually non-toxic? rather than treating ceramic as inert bare metal.

FAQ

Does the settlement prove HexClad pans are unsafe to cook in?

No. The publicly posted orders approve a consumer-marketing settlement and a permanent limit on calling PTFE/PFAS-containing products “PFAS free,” “PFOA free,” or “non-toxic.” HexClad denied wrongdoing.[3][4][10] Federal food-contact rules still authorize specified perfluorocarbon resins for repeated-use cookware coatings under 21 CFR 177.1550.[7] Safety questions for a specific pan still need product-specific lab work we do not invent.

Is a HexClad hybrid the same as bare stainless?

No. The stainless lattice is real metal, but the recessed coating is still PTFE-family nonstick on the hybrid line we rank.[1][2] Bare stainless entries such as Made In’s uncoated clad pan are a different materials class on our rankings.

What about HexClad’s TerraBond “PFAS-free” bakeware?

Treat it as a brand ceramic nonstick claim until independent lab citations for those SKUs appear. The PR describes PFAS-free TerraBond ceramic nonstick; that is not the same as a verified third-party panel in our evidence model.[1]

If I already own a hybrid pan, should I throw it out?

Ownership decisions are personal. Our ranking answers a preference question (materials + published lab transparency), not a recall notice. If your goal is avoiding fluoropolymer coatings going forward, replace worn hybrid pieces with bare stainless or iron when you next buy — and retire any pan with flaking coating regardless of brand.

Where do I check settlement claim paperwork?

Use the official administrator site at hexcladsettlement.com and the posted orders/PDFs linked there — not influencer summaries.[3][4]

References

1. HexClad / PR Newswire — HexClad Raises the Bar with New High-Performance Bakeware (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hexclad-raises-the-bar-with-new-high-performance-bakeware-302879938.html)
2. Best Cookware Ranked — HexClad Hybrid Frying Pan product page & methodology materials scores (https://best-cookware-ranked.com/products/hexclad-hybrid-frying-pan; https://best-cookware-ranked.com/methodology)
3. Order granting motion for final approval / permanent injunction language — HexClad settlement PDF (https://hexcladsettlement.com/media/6158782/order_granting_motion_for_final_approval_class_action_settlement.pdf)
4. Official HexClad settlement website — Cliburn v. One Source to Market (https://www.hexcladsettlement.com/)
5. ClassAction.org — $2.5M HexClad settlement reached in false-advertising lawsuit (https://www.classaction.org/news/2.5m-hexclad-settlement-reached-in-false-advertising-lawsuit-over-supposedly-non-toxic-cookware)
6. U.S. EPA — PFAS Explained (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained)
7. eCFR — 21 CFR 177.1550 Perfluorocarbon resins (PTFE-family food-contact authorization) (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-177/subpart-B/section-177.1550)
8. Ecology Center — What’s Cooking? FTIR report on nonstick coatings (https://www.ecocenter.org/our-work/healthy-stuff-lab/reports/whats-cooking)
9. Consumer Reports — You Can’t Always Trust Claims on ‘Non-Toxic’ Cookware (https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/you-cant-always-trust-claims-on-non-toxic-cookware-a4849321487/)
10. HexClad settlement agreement PDF (denial of wrongdoing; ¶ 46 injunctive relief) (https://www.hexcladsettlement.com/media/5774841/settlement_agreement.pdf)
11. Light Labs — Made In Cookware PFAS report (https://app.lightlabs.com/comprehensive-testing-report/69/1621)
12. Light Labs — Made In Cookware PFAS report (later panel) (https://app.lightlabs.com/comprehensive-testing-report/69/244)
13. Lead Safe Mama — Gray Staub La Cocotte XRF (https://tamararubin.com/2017/12/staub/)
14. Order granting final approval of $2.5M settlement — HexClad settlement PDF (https://hexcladsettlement.com/media/6777763/hxk_order_granting_final_approval.pdf)