As of September 8, 2026, official records confirm two historical California Proposition 65 actions involving Apricot Power, but those matters concerned alleged lead and cadmium warning violations. A separate May 2024 FDA safety alert identifies high amygdalin levels in three raw bitter apricot-seed products. The primary sources reviewed for this update do not establish a filed amygdalin personal-injury class action, a settlement for seed-related injuries, or a damages award.

Status as of September 8, 2026

The record currently supports three different conclusions. First, the FDA warned consumers about a potential cyanide-toxicity risk associated with three Apricot Power seed products. Second, the FDA said Apricot Power declined its request for a voluntary recall. Third, California court records document earlier Proposition 65 consent judgments involving alleged warning violations for lead or cadmium.

Those records should not be combined into a claim that a seed-injury class action is pending. A safety alert is not a civil complaint, a declined voluntary recall is not a court finding, and a Proposition 65 consent judgment about chemical warnings is not proof that a consumer suffered an amygdalin-related injury. Law-firm intake pages may seek potential clients, but an intake page does not establish that a complaint has been filed.

The Three Products in the FDA Alert

The FDA safety alert dated May 24, 2024 identifies these Apricot Power products:

• California Select Apricot Seeds, Raw Bitter, 8 oz. — NGR FY24-015
• Organic Turkish Select Apricot Seeds, Raw Bitter, 8 oz. — NGR FY24-016
• South African Select Apricot Seeds, Raw Bitter, 16 oz. — NGR FY24-017

The NGR values are identifiers used in the FDA alert. Consumers should compare the complete product name, package size, labeling, purchase records, and any other available identifying information rather than assuming every Apricot Power product is included.

What the FDA Found and Advised

According to the FDA, the Texas Department of State Health Services collected samples following a consumer complaint. The Commonwealth of Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services analyzed the samples and found high levels of amygdalin. The FDA explained that amygdalin can cause cyanide toxicity and warned that severe exposure may be fatal.

The agency advised consumers to stop using and dispose of the identified products. It also advised people who had consumed them to contact a healthcare provider and to seek emergency medical care if they experienced symptoms of cyanide toxicity. The alert states that the FDA asked Apricot Power to recall the products on May 8, 2024, and that the company continued to decline a voluntary recall as of May 24. The FDA described its investigation as ongoing on the date of the alert. No newer update to that FDA alert was located during the September 8, 2026 review, so its “ongoing” language should not be read as a confirmed current agency status.

The alert does not report a court judgment, establish individual causation, or announce a consumer compensation fund.

Warning Versus Recall Versus Lawsuit

[qualify_short_1]

Historical Proposition 65 Litigation

Apricot Power's prior California cases are relevant history, but they are distinct from the 2024 FDA seed alert.

2022 Ground SuperFood Mix Consent Judgment

The complaint filed March 7, 2022 in Environmental Research Center, Inc. v. Apricot Power, Inc., Alameda County Superior Court case No. 22CV008035, alleged that Ground SuperFood Mix — 12 Nutrient Dense Superfoods and Ground SuperFood Mix — 20 Nutrient Dense Superfoods exposed consumers to lead and cadmium without warnings required by Proposition 65.

The consent judgment entered September 14, 2022 states that Apricot Power denied the material allegations and any wrongdoing. The agreed resolution included product-warning or reformulation provisions and payments totaling $12,000: a $500 civil penalty and $11,500 for fees and costs. It did not adjudicate an amygdalin poisoning claim or compensate consumers for a personal injury.

2017 Dietary-Supplement Consent Judgment

An earlier California action covered specified dietary-supplement products and alleged exposures to lead and cadmium without required Proposition 65 warnings. The California Attorney General's enforcement record links the notice, complaint, settlement, and judgment for Alameda County Superior Court case No. RG16822787.

The consent judgment dated March 28, 2017 includes warning and reformulation terms. It records $2,985 in civil penalties and $37,014 in fees and costs, totaling $39,999. The Attorney General's settlement listing separately reports $40,000, a one-dollar discrepancy in the public records. Neither figure is a consumer-injury settlement benchmark, and the judgment is not proof of a cyanide-toxicity injury.

Amygdalin in Plain English

Amygdalin occurs naturally in the seeds of some fruits, including apricots. The National Cancer Institute's patient summary explains that amygdalin can produce hydrogen cyanide in the body. Products promoted as “laetrile” or “vitamin B17” are associated with amygdalin, but NCI states that laetrile is not an approved cancer treatment and that controlled clinical trials have not shown it to work as a cancer treatment.

The FDA alert is the controlling source for the three products and the agency's consumer instructions. General information about amygdalin cannot determine whether a particular person was exposed, whether a symptom was caused by a product, or whether a legal claim is viable.

[apricot_long_1]

What a Potential Claim Would Need to Establish

A regulatory warning may be relevant evidence, but it does not complete an individual product-liability case. The governing law varies by jurisdiction and legal theory. A case-specific review may need to address:

• Product identity: the exact product, package size, label, NGR identifier, purchase source, and any remaining packaging or photographs.
• Purchase and use: receipts, online order history, payment records, dates, amount consumed, frequency of use, and instructions followed.
• Timing and symptoms: when exposure allegedly occurred, when symptoms began, and whether other plausible causes were evaluated.
• Diagnosis and treatment: emergency, hospital, poison-control, laboratory, and follow-up records, along with the treating clinicians' conclusions.
• Causation: reliable medical and scientific evidence connecting the identified product and exposure to the claimed injury.
• Legal responsibility: a viable claim against the appropriate manufacturer, seller, or other party under the law that applies.
• Damages and recovery source: documented medical costs, income loss, other harm, available insurance, and collectability.
• Deadlines: the applicable limitation period, any statute of repose, and procedural rules for the claim and jurisdiction.

No one factor guarantees that a claim can be filed or will succeed. A lawyer evaluating a potential matter would need the facts and documents for that individual, not only the existence of the FDA alert.

[explore_short_1]

Evidence to Preserve Without Disregarding FDA Guidance

The FDA advised consumers to dispose of the identified products. Do not retain or handle potentially hazardous contents contrary to that guidance. Evidence preservation can instead focus on materials that do not require keeping the seeds:

• photograph the packaging, front and back labels, size, identifiers, and contents before disposal if it can be done safely;
• save receipts, order confirmations, payment records, shipping notices, and retailer communications;
• record when and how much was consumed without relying on memory alone;
• preserve healthcare, laboratory, poison-control, and emergency-service records;
• save photographs or contemporaneous notes documenting symptoms and functional effects;
• retain medical bills, pharmacy costs, travel expenses, wage records, and employer communications; and
• keep communications with Apricot Power, a retailer, the FDA, or another regulator.

If a lawyer or medical professional recommends a different evidence-handling step, ask for instructions that account for the potential toxicity and the FDA's disposal advice. Do not consume, taste, or open a product merely to document it.

[justice_short_1]

Practical Next Steps

Consumers with a product named in the May 2024 alert should follow the FDA's stop-use and disposal instructions. Anyone who consumed an identified product should follow the alert's medical guidance, including seeking emergency care for symptoms of cyanide toxicity. Suspected adverse events or product problems can be reported through the FDA channels identified in the alert.

Someone considering a legal claim should obtain jurisdiction-specific advice promptly because deadlines and available legal theories vary. Bring the product information, purchase history, exposure timeline, and medical documentation to the consultation. A request for case information does not mean a class action exists, the person is eligible, or compensation will be recovered.

[apricot_long_2]

Direct Answers

Is There an Apricot Power Amygdalin Class Action?

The primary regulatory and California court sources reviewed for this update do not establish a filed amygdalin personal-injury class action as of September 8, 2026. That statement is limited to the reviewed record; it is not a claim that no individual filing could exist in another court or under a different caption.

Did Apricot Power Recall the Three Seed Products?

The FDA's May 24, 2024 record is a safety alert. It says the agency requested a voluntary recall on May 8 and that Apricot Power continued to decline as of the alert date. The alert itself does not announce that the company completed a voluntary recall.

Were the 2017 and 2022 Cases About Amygdalin Injuries?

No. The court records describe Proposition 65 warning claims involving alleged lead or cadmium exposure. They do not decide whether the three products in the 2024 FDA alert caused a consumer's cyanide-toxicity injury.

How Much Is an Apricot Power Claim Worth?

No verified mass settlement or damages schedule in the reviewed primary sources provides a reliable figure. The payments in the Proposition 65 judgments resolved statutory warning disputes and fees; they are not valuations for a personal-injury claim. Any potential recovery would depend on liability, causation, documented damages, governing law, insurance, and collectability.

Legal.com Liability Disclaimer

All content published by Legal.com is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, does not constitute a legal opinion, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a qualified attorney. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this article, using Legal.com templates, or contacting Legal.com. Legal.com disclaims all liability for actions taken or not taken based on this publication.