Class Action Lawsuit Alleges ‘Ionization’ Smoke Alarms Are Ill-Suited to Timely Warn Against Smoldering Fires

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit claims that smoke alarm manufacturers Kidde Safety Equipment and First Alert have failed to warn consumers that their ionization-only smoke detectors are technologically incapable of detecting slow-moving, smoldering fires in real-world settings.

Want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuits that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

According to the 55-page false advertising lawsuit, Walter Kidde Portable Equipment and BRK Brands, which manufactures First Alert smoke detectors, are well aware of the shortcomings of ionization-only smoke alarms, particularly in comparison to photoelectric smoke alarms capable of more quickly detecting smoke from a smoldering fire, a leading cause of residential fire deaths.

The class action lawsuit summarizes that because ionization-only devices are not suited to, and cannot, timely warn of real-world smoldering fires—a “particularly common and dangerous type of home fire,” the suit points out—the devices cannot truthfully and accurately be advertised and sold as a “smoke alarm.” In particular, in the event of a smoldering fire, ionization-only devices “do not sound or sound too late,” often as a fire is in the process of transitioning into a flaming fire, the complaint says.

Cited in the case are decades of studies that show that modern photoelectric smoke alarms are more proficient at detecting quick-burning, flaming fires and slow, smoldering fires over ionization-only smoke detectors. Though industry standards still recommend consumers install both types of smoke detectors, the complaint argues that the manufacturers have preyed on buyers by promoting their products as sufficiently reliable smoke alarms.

“Defendants have known about the failures of ionization-only devices for many years,” the complaint says. “Each Defendant began manufacturing and selling ionization-only devices decades ago, and they became able to mass-produce them cheaply. Consequently, the majority of U.S. homes are equipped with ionization-only devices.”

The case takes issue with the manner in which Kidde and First Alert package and advertise their products, citing numerous different smoke alarm devices and the way both brands allegedly obscure from consumers the true safety specifications and recommendations. Specifically, the filing says, the recommendation that consumers use both ionization- and photoelectric-detecting alarms is typically hidden on the bottom panel of the box, or underneath other large labeling and fonts more likely to catch a consumer’s attention.

Moreover, the suit points out that how the smoke alarms are displayed in stores also plays a part in consumers’ purchasing decisions.

“Defendants’ ionization-only devices were typically sold in the same display racks as photoelectric devices or hybrid products, with the pricing lower for ionization-only devices, making them the most attractive option to consumers,” the case states.

As a result, “it was difficult for a reasonable consumer to understand the critical and potentially life-saving differences between the different types of products,” the suit continues.

Related Reading: Kidde, First Alert Falsely Advertise ‘Smoke Alarms’ that Fail to Properly Warn of Common House Fires, Class Action Says

According to the lawsuit, ionization technology, developed in the 1930s, relies on a radioactive source to detect small particles in the air, like smoke, which alters the mobility of the internal ionization current and causes an alarm to trigger. In the 1970s, the case explains, photoelectric technology was developed to detect smoke using light sensors from a broader range of fires, like smoldering fires, which are more common in residential settings.

Per the complaint, Kidde and First Alert are both subject to new 2025 standards from Underwriters Laboratory, and the ionization smoke alarms at issue have not, and cannot, meet the new threshold. Although the defendants have been forced to discontinue making the smoke detectors at issue due to the new 2025 Underwriters standard, millions of the products have been sold via deceptive and misleading advertising for decades, the lawsuit stresses.

“Today, tens of millions of American families are immediately at risk that a fire that begins as a smoldering fire in their home will not be detected in time, even though they bought an ionization-only ‘smoke alarm’ they thought was protecting them,” the case charges.

The plaintiffs, Washington state residents, bought the Kidde and First Alert smoke detectors at issue and came to their purchasing decision based on the product’s packaging and description, the filing relays.

The plaintiffs feel as that even if they had “carefully examined all parts of the package—something that a reasonable consumer under the circumstances would not do—they would still reasonably be unaware that the ionization-only device inside would not timely detect and warn of the presence of smoke from a smoldering fire.”

The ionization smoke alarm class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States (excluding California) who purchased a product labeled as a “smoke alarm” made by Kidde or First Alert with ionization technology as its only means of detecting smoke. 

Learn all about the legal process: What is a class action lawsuit?