If a contractor showed up at your house with a $50 million federal class-action settlement on their record for selling defective products, a California Attorney General consent judgment for lead contamination, and 19 consolidated lawsuits pending against them — would you hire them?
The Sacramento City Unified School District just did.
The artificial turf scheduled for installation at Crocker/Riverside Elementary in May 2026 is a FieldTurf product. FieldTurf is a subsidiary of Tarkett, a multinational flooring company. And FieldTurf’s record with American school districts is, to put it generously, not what parents would expect from a vendor entrusted with our children’s playing surfaces.
Here is what the public record shows.
A $50 million federal class-action settlement
In December 2024, FieldTurf and Tarkett finalized a federal class-action settlement worth more than $50 million. The plaintiffs were school districts across the United States — more than 1,200 of them — who alleged that FieldTurf had knowingly sold them artificial turf fields the company knew were defective and would fail well before their advertised lifespan.
This was not a minor commercial dispute. The lawsuits alleged that FieldTurf executives had been aware of the defects, had received warnings from their own fiber supplier, and had continued selling the product to schools anyway.
A California Attorney General Prop. 65 consent judgment
The State of California has its own history with FieldTurf. The California Attorney General’s office brought a Proposition 65 enforcement action against FieldTurf for lead levels in their products that exceeded the legal limit by more than 300 times.
The case ended in a consent judgment requiring FieldTurf to reformulate. But the underlying record stands: a vendor that California’s own top law enforcement office found was selling lead-contaminated turf in our state.
19 consolidated lawsuits — including California school districts
Beyond the class-action settlement, FieldTurf faces 19 consolidated lawsuits in federal court. The plaintiffs include California school districts. These cases allege the same core pattern: that FieldTurf marketed fields as durable and safe while internal company communications showed otherwise.
A formal request for an FTC investigation
In 2017, U.S. Senators Cory Booker and Robert Menendez sent a formal letter to the Federal Trade Commission requesting an investigation into FieldTurf’s marketing practices toward schools. The senators cited evidence that FieldTurf had misrepresented the durability and safety of its products to public school districts spending taxpayer dollars.
FieldTurf sued its own supplier
Perhaps the most damning evidence in the public record is a lawsuit FieldTurf filed itself. In 2011, FieldTurf sued its fiber supplier, TenCate, alleging the fibers were defective. That lawsuit is now part of how school districts proved their case against FieldTurf — because the dates show FieldTurf had known about the defects for years while continuing to sell the product to schools.
The district was warned — and proceeded anyway
On March 24, 2026, Assistant Superintendent of Facilities Chris Ralston wrote in an email to a parent:
“I am aware of all the vendors we use, liability and lawsuits included.”
There is no record that any of this litigation history was disclosed to the SCUSD Board of Education, to the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee, or to the Crocker/Riverside school community before the contract proceeded. Parents learned about FieldTurf’s record from public court filings and news coverage — not from the district that signed the contract.
Why this matters
A school district is not just any customer. School districts have a unique obligation: they are spending public money to make decisions that affect children. When the vendor a district selects has a documented record of selling products it knew were defective, that is information the public has a right to weigh before the contract is signed.
That conversation never happened at SCUSD. It still can — but only if the Board hears from enough families to make it happen.
The Board of Education has the authority to pause this contract, require full vendor disclosure to the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee, and direct staff to revise the project scope. None of that requires new funding. It requires the Board to ask one question: why didn’t we know this before we signed?
Your email is what makes them ask.
I am simply aghast. Thank you for posting all of this to one website. Our children should not be a science experiment, and their well-being should not be glossed over to force a project without any of the necessary steps taken. I commend you for your work here!