If you’ve ever treated yourself to a bar of Lindt Excellence dark chocolate, you probably did so thinking it was a "healthier" indulgence. Most of us did. It’s got that sophisticated gold foil and the "expertly crafted" stamp that makes you feel like you’re eating something pure.
But then, late in 2022, a Consumer Reports study dropped a massive bombshell. They tested dozens of dark chocolate bars for heavy metals. The results? Two of Lindt’s popular products—the Excellence Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa and the 85% Cocoa bars—showed levels of lead and cadmium that would make any health-conscious person flinch.
Naturally, the lawyers didn't wait long. A wave of legal action followed, and the Lindt class action lawsuit became a major headache for the Swiss chocolatier.
The Core of the Conflict: Heavy Metals in Your Chocolate
Honestly, the science behind how lead gets into chocolate is kinda fascinating, even if it's gross. Cadmium mostly comes from the soil. The cacao plant sucks it up as it grows. Lead, on the other hand, usually lands on the beans while they’re drying outside in the sun, often from dust or industrial pollution in the air.
The Consumer Reports testing found that an ounce of Lindt’s 70% bar contained 116% of California’s maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for cadmium. The 85% bar was even more startling, clocking in at 166% of the MADL for lead.
You've got to understand that California's limits are some of the strictest in the world. They aren't federal limits, but for many consumers, they are the gold standard for safety. People were rightfully upset. They felt like they were paying a premium price for a product that was "expertly crafted" with, well, toxic metals.
📖 Related: Average Uber Driver Income: What People Get Wrong About the Numbers
The "Puffery" Defense That Backfired
This is where the story gets weird. In late 2024, Lindt tried to get the lawsuit dismissed in a New York federal court. Their legal team argued that phrases like "excellence" and "expertly crafted with the finest ingredients" weren't meant to be taken as literal promises of purity.
They called it "puffery."
In legal speak, puffery is just exaggerated advertising that no "reasonable consumer" would actually believe. Basically, they were saying, "Hey, everyone knows advertising is just boasting."
It didn't go over well.
The media, especially in Switzerland, had a field day. People felt like Lindt was admitting their quality was just a marketing trick. Lindt later had to clarify that this was just a "technical legal response" and that they still stand by their quality. But the damage to their reputation was done. The judge, Ann Donnelly, wasn't buying it either. She denied the motion to dismiss, noting that those marketing claims could lead a reasonable person to expect a level of safety that the plaintiffs say wasn't there.
👉 See also: Why People Search How to Leave the Union NYT and What Happens Next
Where Does the Lawsuit Stand in 2026?
If you’re looking for a massive settlement check right now, don't hold your breath.
Legal battles like the Lindt class action lawsuit take forever. As of early 2026, many of the individual cases have been consolidated or are still grinding through the discovery phase. Some cases, like the Harkavy v. Lindt & Sprüngli case in California, saw voluntary dismissals, but others remain very much alive in New York and other states.
- Status: Active/Pending in several jurisdictions.
- Affected Products: Primarily the 70% and 85% Excellence Dark Chocolate bars.
- The Defense: Lindt maintains their products are safe and comply with all actual food safety regulations, even if they exceed California's specific warning thresholds.
It’s a mess. Truly.
Is Your Dark Chocolate Actually Dangerous?
It depends on who you ask and how much you eat. Most health experts note that the risk comes from chronic exposure. If you eat a square once a week, you’re probably fine. If you’re eating a whole bar every day? That’s a different story.
Lead exposure is particularly nasty for kids and pregnant women because it messes with brain development. For adults, long-term exposure can lead to kidney issues and high blood pressure. Cadmium isn't much better; it's a known carcinogen and builds up in the kidneys over decades.
✨ Don't miss: TT Ltd Stock Price Explained: What Most Investors Get Wrong About This Textile Pivot
Interestingly, Lindt’s sister brand, Ghirardelli, actually performed quite well in the same tests. Some of their bars were labeled "safer choices" by Consumer Reports. It shows that it is possible to produce dark chocolate with lower metal levels if the sourcing and processing are tight.
What You Should Do Now
You don't have to swear off chocolate forever. That would be a tragedy. But you can be smarter about it.
First, diversify your treats. Don't stick to just one brand or one high-cacao percentage bar. Rotating brands can help limit your exposure to a specific metal from a specific region's soil.
Second, check the test results. Organizations like Consumer Reports and "As You Sow" regularly update their databases on heavy metals in food.
Third, don't assume "organic" means "metal-free." Heavy metals are often in the soil itself, so an organic certification doesn't automatically mean the cacao beans didn't soak up some cadmium.
Keep an eye on the court dockets if you’re a heavy Lindt consumer. If a settlement is eventually reached, there will likely be a claims website where you can submit proof of purchase for a refund or a small payout. For now, just keep those receipts and maybe reach for the 70% bar a little less often until the industry figures out how to clean up the supply chain.
Actionable Insights for Consumers:
- Switch to lower cacao percentages (like 60% or milk chocolate) occasionally, as heavy metals are concentrated in the cacao solids.
- Follow the Gralia v. Lindt & Sprüngli case in the Eastern District of New York for the most significant updates on the class action status.
- Look for "Safer Choice" brands identified in independent testing if you are pregnant or buying for children.