Diacetyl Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

There is no reliable average diacetyl lawsuit settlement or verdict because reported outcomes vary widely by exposure history, diagnosis, defendant conduct, and the severity of the plaintiff’s lung disease.

Publicly reported jury verdicts have ranged from approximately $2.6 million to more than $30 million, with some of the largest awards involving permanent respiratory impairment and extensive evidence of long-term diacetyl exposure.

High-value verdicts have included an award of approximately $30.4 million for a flavoring plant worker and a $25 million verdict for a consumer who used nonstick cooking spray (secured by TorHoerman Law).

Earlier cases also produced substantial results.

In 2004, a jury returned a reported $20 million judgment in one of the first major popcorn lung cases, and in 2012, a federal jury awarded a Denver man approximately $7.2 million after he developed bronchiolitis obliterans following years of exposure to fumes from diacetyl-containing microwave popcorn.

Later lawsuits expanded beyond industrial settings.

Plaintiffs have alleged exposure through consumer food products and other products capable of releasing diacetyl-containing fumes during ordinary use.

Claims generally focus on whether inhalation exposure placed the plaintiff at an increased risk of bronchiolitis obliterans or another permanent respiratory disease and whether the available medical and exposure evidence supports causation.

Past verdicts are not a measure of what another case will recover.

Settlement value depends on the plaintiff’s pulmonary impairment, treatment needs, documented exposure, economic losses, available evidence, applicable law, and whether punitive damages or other enhanced damages are legally available.

Why Compensation Amounts Vary by Case

Compensation in diacetyl lawsuits varies because the value of each claim depends on the severity of the lung injury, the plaintiff’s financial losses, the strength of the causation evidence, and the conduct attributed to the defendant.

Awards may include medical expenses, lost wages, reduced earning capacity, pain and suffering, and other damages tied to permanent respiratory impairment.

Many popcorn lung lawsuits are based on negligence or defective product theories.

Plaintiffs may allege that manufacturers failed to warn about the dangers of inhaling diacetyl, sold products without adequate safety information, or failed to adopt exposure controls after research identified a risk of serious lung damage.

Occupational cases may also involve allegations concerning workplace ventilation, respiratory protection, air monitoring, or other measures intended to reduce inhalation exposure.

Evidence showing that a manufacturer knew about scientific research linking diacetyl inhalation to bronchiolitis obliterans or other lung injuries can materially affect the value of a claim.

Internal documents, warning history, safety data, industrial hygiene records, and expert testimony may be used to examine what a company knew, when it knew it, and what actions it took in response.

Punitive damages can substantially increase a jury award in cases where the applicable law permits them and the evidence supports conduct beyond ordinary negligence.

A jury may consider punitive damages when it finds that a defendant acted with gross negligence, conscious disregard, or another heightened level of misconduct recognized under state law.

Diacetyl lawsuits can also involve different defendants and legal theories depending on where the exposure occurred.

Claims against flavoring manufacturers, chemical suppliers, product manufacturers, and, in some circumstances, employers may focus on inadequate warnings or exposure controls.

The available claims and damages can differ significantly based on the governing state law and whether the exposure occurred in a workplace or through a consumer product.

Why Past Verdicts Do Not Guarantee Future Results

Past diacetyl verdicts provide context for how juries have valued severe lung injuries, but they do not establish the value of a future claim.

Each case requires separate proof of liability, causation, and damages.

The outcome can depend on the plaintiff’s diagnosis and exposure history, the strength of the medical evidence, the defendant’s conduct, the governing state law, and the damages supported by the record.

A jury verdict is also different from a settlement.

Settlements are negotiated resolutions, while verdicts reflect a jury’s findings after trial and may later be reduced, appealed, or otherwise modified.

Prior awards involving popcorn lung or bronchiolitis obliterans should therefore be viewed as examples of past case outcomes rather than estimates of what another diacetyl lawsuit may recover.

On February 4, 2026, our attorneys secured a $25 million jury verdict for Roland Esparza in Los Angeles County Superior Court after a jury found Conagra Brands negligent in a product liability case involving butter-flavored PAM cooking spray.

The jury also found that Conagra failed to adequately warn consumers about inhalation risks and that the failure to warn was a substantial factor in Esparza’s injury.

Esparza was diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans, or popcorn lung, after years of using PAM butter-flavored cooking spray in his home.

His lawsuit alleged that he began using the product in the early 1990s and regularly sprayed it onto heated pans several times per day, exposing him to aerosolized flavoring chemicals that included diacetyl and acetyl propionyl.

By the time of trial, Esparza required oxygen 24 hours a day and was awaiting a double lung transplant.

The jury returned the $25 million verdict unanimously after finding Conagra responsible for his injuries. TorHoerman Law partners Jacob Plattenberger and Alan Holcomb represented Esparza alongside co-counsel Scott Hall.

The Esparza case differed from much of the earlier diacetyl litigation, which developed from occupational exposure among workers in microwave popcorn and flavoring facilities.

Esparza’s claim arose from repeated inhalation exposure during ordinary household use of a consumer cooking product, making the verdict a significant example of a diacetyl case outside the traditional workplace setting.

Public reporting described it as the first popcorn lung verdict against a cooking spray manufacturer.

Conagra disputed the verdict and stated that PAM Butter Flavor cooking spray had been diacetyl-free for nearly two decades.

The company also said it intended to pursue available legal avenues to challenge the result.

The $25 million award is a jury verdict, not an average or projected settlement value for other diacetyl claims.

Future cases will depend on their own exposure evidence, medical findings, damages, defendant conduct, and applicable law.

The value of a diacetyl lawsuit depends on the strength of the liability and causation evidence, the severity of the lung injury, and the financial and personal losses caused by the disease.

Cases involving a confirmed diagnosis of bronchiolitis obliterans or constrictive bronchiolitis, permanent loss of lung function, oxygen dependence, or lung transplant evaluation may involve greater damages because the medical consequences are more severe and long-term treatment costs can be substantial.

Factors that may increase the potential value of a diacetyl claim include:

• A confirmed diagnosis of bronchiolitis obliterans or another serious flavorings-related lung disease
• Permanent or progressive loss of lung function
• Oxygen dependence, respiratory failure, or lung transplant evaluation
• Documented occupational or consumer exposure to the chemical diacetyl
• Medical evidence supporting a causal relationship between the exposure and lung disease
• Product records, workplace records, or testing data identifying diacetyl in the exposure environment
• Evidence that a manufacturer or other defendant knew or should have known about the inhalation risk
• Expert testimony addressing exposure levels, causation, and the extent of the plaintiff’s pulmonary impairment

The exposure setting can also affect the type and strength of available evidence.

A worker exposed to airborne diacetyl in a flavoring plant, microwave popcorn facility, or coffee roasting operation may rely on employment records, industrial hygiene data, safety documents, and coworker testimony.

A consumer product claim may depend more heavily on product testing, ingredient information, purchase and usage history, warnings, and expert analysis of how the product released diacetyl-containing fumes or aerosols.

The strongest claims generally combine documented exposure with a well-supported medical diagnosis and evidence connecting the defendant’s conduct to the plaintiff’s injury.

Diagnosis, Lung Damage, and Long-Term Health Effects

A confirmed diagnosis and the extent of pulmonary impairment can substantially affect the value of a diacetyl lawsuit.

Bronchiolitis obliterans, commonly called popcorn lung, involves inflammation and scarring of the small airways that can cause permanent obstruction and loss of lung function.

Medical evidence may include pulmonary function testing, CT imaging, biopsy findings, oxygen requirements, treatment history, and evaluation for lung transplantation.

A claimant with measurable respiratory impairment, oxygen dependence, respiratory failure, or an inability to continue working may have substantially greater medical and economic damages than someone with less severe symptoms.

Long-term effects can include chronic cough, wheezing, shortness of breath, fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, and permanent limitations on work and daily activity. Airway scarring may continue to restrict airflow after exposure to diacetyl has ended.

Occupational Exposure vs. Consumer Product Exposure

Occupational exposure diacetyl claims have historically involved workers in flavoring plants, microwave popcorn facilities, food manufacturing operations, and coffee roasting environments where airborne flavoring chemicals were inhaled during production.

Evidence in an occupational case may include employment records, safety data sheets, industrial hygiene testing, air-monitoring results, ventilation records, respiratory-protection policies, training materials, and testimony from coworkers.

Claims against manufacturers, suppliers, or other third parties may examine what those companies knew about inhalation hazards and what warnings or exposure-control information they provided.

Consumer product cases require a different evidentiary record.

A plaintiff may need purchase records, product labels, ingredient information, usage history, laboratory testing, and expert analysis showing how ordinary use could release diacetyl or related flavoring chemicals into the air.

The key distinction is not that one exposure route is more serious than another.

It is that occupational and consumer cases often rely on different evidence to establish the source, frequency, and extent of inhalation exposure.

Compensation in diacetyl lawsuits may include economic and non-economic damages tied to the plaintiff’s lung injury and its long-term consequences.

Economic damages address measurable financial losses, including:

• Past and future medical expenses
• Pulmonary testing and specialist treatment
• Oxygen therapy and respiratory support
• Lung transplant evaluation, surgery, and follow-up care
• Lost wages
• Reduced future earning capacity

Non-economic damages may compensate for:

• Physical pain and suffering
• Loss of normal life or reduced quality of life
• Permanent physical limitations
• Emotional distress associated with severe respiratory disease

The amount available depends on the severity and permanence of the injury.

A person who requires continuous oxygen, can no longer work, or faces lung transplantation may have substantially greater medical costs, lost income, and non-economic damages than someone with less severe respiratory impairment.

Wrongful Death Damages in Fatal Diacetyl Cases

Wrongful death claims may arise when diacetyl exposure allegedly contributes to fatal respiratory failure, end-stage lung disease, transplant complications, or related fatal conditions.

These claims are especially serious because they involve the death of a person who may have developed bronchiolitis obliterans or another severe lung disease after inhaling diacetyl.

Wrongful death damages vary by state law.

They may include funeral expenses, medical bills before death, lost financial support, loss of companionship, and other damages available to surviving family members.

A fatal case requires careful medical and legal review.

Attorneys may need to examine death certificates, medical records, pulmonary testing, exposure history, autopsy records if available, and expert opinions connecting the disease to diacetyl exposure.

There is no fixed formula for calculating diacetyl lawsuit settlement amounts.

Case value depends on the strength of the liability and causation evidence, the severity and permanence of the lung injury, documented damages, and the risks each party would face if the case proceeded to trial.

A settlement may account for past and future medical expenses, lost income, reduced earning capacity, pain and suffering, and other losses caused by respiratory disease.

Cases involving permanent pulmonary impairment, oxygen dependence, inability to work, or lung transplantation may involve substantially greater damages because of the long-term medical and financial consequences.

Attorneys may also review scientific research, product records, company documents, warnings, workplace exposure data, industrial hygiene records, and prior litigation involving similar exposures.

Evidence concerning what a defendant knew about the respiratory risks of diacetyl and how it responded to that information can affect both liability and settlement negotiations.

Liability, Causation, and Defendant Conduct

Liability in a diacetyl lawsuit may depend on whether a manufacturer, chemical supplier, distributor, or other defendant failed to provide adequate warnings, sold a defective product, or otherwise bears legal responsibility for the plaintiff’s exposure.

Causation requires evidence connecting the plaintiff’s exposure to diacetyl or related flavoring chemicals with the diagnosed lung disease.

Medical records, pulmonary function testing, exposure history, workplace records, product testing, and expert testimony may be used to establish that connection.

NIOSH has associated occupational diacetyl exposure with severe respiratory impairment and obliterative bronchiolitis, an irreversible disease involving scarring and narrowing of the small airways.

Defendant conduct can also affect case value.

Company records, scientific research, safety data, warnings, and exposure-control practices may establish when a manufacturer or supplier became aware of inhalation hazards and what actions it took in response.

NIOSH recommends engineering controls, exposure monitoring, work-practice changes, training, and respiratory protection to reduce occupational exposure to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione.

Workplace cases require separate analysis because occupational disease claims may be subject to state workers’ compensation laws, while claims against manufacturers, suppliers, or other third parties may involve different causes of action.

Why Some Cases Settle and Others Go to Trial

A diacetyl lawsuit may settle when the parties reach an agreement on liability, causation, and damages without asking a jury to resolve the dispute.

Settlement negotiations can occur at different stages of litigation and generally reflect each side’s assessment of the evidence and potential trial exposure.

Cases may proceed to trial when the parties disagree about the source or extent of exposure, the cause of the plaintiff’s lung disease, the adequacy of warnings, defendant responsibility, or the amount of damages.

Bronchiolitis obliterans can also occur in connection with other exposures and medical conditions, which can create disputed causation issues in individual cases.

OSHA identifies certain irritant gases, organ transplantation, connective-tissue disorders, some respiratory infections, and certain medications among other recognized associations with the disease.

A jury may return a substantial award, award less than the plaintiff sought, or find for the defendant.

Verdicts can also be modified through post-trial proceedings or appeals, so previously reported diacetyl verdicts should be treated as historical case outcomes rather than estimates of what another lawsuit will recover.

You may qualify for a diacetyl lawsuit if you were diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans, constrictive bronchiolitis, or another serious lung disease after inhaling diacetyl or related flavoring chemicals.

Potential claims may involve occupational exposure in flavoring plants, food manufacturing facilities, microwave popcorn operations, coffee roasting facilities, or other workplaces where diacetyl became airborne.

Consumer claims may also arise from products that allegedly released diacetyl-containing fumes or aerosols during ordinary use.

A viable claim generally requires evidence of the diagnosis, the source and duration of exposure, and a medical basis for connecting the exposure to the lung disease.

Workplace records, product information, pulmonary testing, medical records, and expert opinions may all be relevant to that analysis.

The available legal options can also depend on the defendant, the state where the exposure occurred, and the applicable statute of limitations.

Our attorneys can review the medical and exposure evidence to determine whether the facts may support a diacetyl claim.

Evidence in Diacetyl Lawsuits

Evidence in a diacetyl lawsuit must connect the source of exposure, the diagnosed lung injury, and the defendant’s alleged conduct.

Medical records can document popcorn lung disease, reduced pulmonary function, treatment history, and the long-term effect on a person’s lung health.

Exposure evidence may help establish when and how people exposed to diacetyl inhaled the chemical and whether warnings or controls addressed the known health risk.

Expert testimony may also be necessary to evaluate causation, exposure levels, product composition, and the severity of the resulting respiratory disease.

Important evidence may include:

• Pulmonary function tests and respiratory imaging
• Medical records diagnosing bronchiolitis obliterans or related lung disease
• Lung biopsy results, oxygen prescriptions, and transplant evaluations
• Employment records and workplace exposure histories
• Safety data sheets, air-monitoring results, and industrial hygiene records
• Product labels, ingredient information, purchase records, and usage history
• Internal company documents concerning diacetyl risks or warnings
• Coworker or witness testimony describing fumes, ventilation, or exposure conditions
• Expert opinions addressing exposure, causation, and pulmonary impairment

Our attorneys represent people who developed serious lung disease after alleged exposure to diacetyl, butter flavoring chemicals, and related substances.

We have experience litigating diacetyl claims involving bronchiolitis obliterans, constrictive bronchiolitis, permanent loss of lung function, and other severe respiratory injuries.

If you or a loved one developed popcorn lung or another serious respiratory condition after inhaling diacetyl, our attorneys can review the diagnosis, exposure history, product or workplace evidence, and resulting damages to determine whether the facts may support a claim.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

You can also use the chat feature on this page to find out if you may qualify for a diacetyl lawsuit settlement.