Class Action Says Defect Can Cause Bissell Cordless Multi-Surface Wet Dry Vacuum to Overheat, Smoke and Catch Fire [DISMISSED]

A proposed class action alleges certain Bissell Cordless Multi-Surface Wet Dry Vacuums are dangerously defective in that they can overheat, smoke and catch fire during regular use.

The 25-page lawsuit says that although Bissell has advertised the lithium-ion battery-powered vacuums as “safe and effective for use,” those bearing the model numbers 2551, 2551W and 25519 were manufactured with faulty battery systems, circuit boards and other electrical components that can pose a substantial hazard to users and property.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), there have been 66 reports of the vacuum smoking and emitting a burning odor and five reports of the battery pack catching fire. Three of the fires caused minor property damage, and one resulted in a burn injury, the CPSC says.

Recognizing the severity of the problem, Bissell issued a recall on January 12 of this year, urging consumers to “immediately stop using the vacuum,” the complaint relays. The case argues, however, that Bissell’s remedial efforts are too little, too late given that at least 60,000 consumers have already purchased the dangerous and defective product.

Bissell’s advertising is “false and misleading,” case says

Per the suit, Bissell “knew or should have known” of the defect before placing the vacuum on the market from January 2019 through November 2022 as even “basic product testing and inspection” would have detected its faulty electronic components. Nevertheless, Bissell sold the vacuum without warning consumers anywhere on the product’s labeling or packaging that it was susceptible to sudden flammability, the case says.

On the contrary, Bissell explicitly advertised that the vacuum was “safe and effective” for various surfaces and omitted the existence of the defect in promising consumers “over 25 minutes of cordless run time thanks to the powerful 36-vold [sic] lithium-ion built-in battery,” the case relays.

The complaint stresses that all of Bissell’s representations are “false and misleading” because the defect ultimately renders the vacuums unsafe and ineffective.

The lawsuit contends that consumers relying on these representations would not expect such a high-priced vacuum to pose a serious safety risk. As the case tells it, similar vacuums go for less than $100, but Bissell’s “long-standing reputation” as an industry leader in cleaning devices allowed it to sell the product for about $360. To add insult to injury, Bissell has established itself as a trustworthy and reliable brand whose products can provide consumers “peace of mind,” the filing says.

The plaintiff, a California consumer, says she purchased Bissell’s Cordless Multi-Surface Wet Dry Vacuum model 25519 based on the belief that the product was adequately manufactured and would safely help her maintain her home and car. The filing argues that the plaintiff would have paid less for the vacuum – or would not have bought it in the first place – had she known the product was prone to overheat, smoke and catch fire. 

Bissell’s recall is “burdensome” and “wholly inadequate,” lawsuit says

Although Bissell posted a recall notice for the vacuum on its website, many consumers continue to use the product, unaware of the hazard it poses, because the company has yet to notify consumers directly about the issue, the suit says. Even consumers who visit Bissell’s online announcement are “left in the dark as to what is really going on with these [v]acuums” since the page is short on specifics about the recall, the complaint adds.

The case further contends that consumers who wish to have their vacuums fixed must participate in Bissell’s “burdensome” and “wholly inadequate” recall process, which requires visiting a Bissell authorized service center or scheduling an in-home service visit with an authorized service technician to receive a free battery pack replacement. Likewise, Bissell stresses that “[a]ll repairs require a BISSELL Authorized Service technician. Do not repair the product yourself,” the filing relays.

“Moreover, no reasonable consumer, including Plaintiff and Class Members, can trust BISSELL when it claims that a replacement battery fixes the Defect,” the suit asserts, adding that consumers may very well continue to face the same safety risks after obtaining a new battery pack.

Who does the lawsuit aim to cover?

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased a Bissell Cordless Multi-Surface Wet Dry Vacuum model numbers 2551, 2551W or 25519 for personal use and not resale during the fullest period allowed by law.

I have a Bissell vacuum. How do I join the lawsuit?

There’s typically nothing you need to do to join a class action lawsuit when it’s first filed. If and when the lawsuit settles, those who are covered by the case, called class members, should receive direct notice of the settlement with details on how and by when to file a claim, your legal rights and more.

If you’ve bought one of the affected Bissell vacuums, or simply want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuit and settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.