Emeril, Tristar Air Fryers – Could a Defect Be Causing Fires?
We’ve touched on a potential defect plaguing certain Emeril and Tristar air fryers before, but the investigation into the appliances has now been reopened. This means there’s still a chance to help get a lawsuit on file to seek compensation for consumers who purchased allegedly fire-prone air fryers. From there, false advertising is the name of the game as we look at three new lawsuits claiming that Amazon’s Ring doorbells, Whole Foods’ rice pilaf and Ziploc bags don’t live up to consumers’ expectations. We didn’t forget about the latest in class action settlements either, so be sure to check the bottom of this newsletter to see if you’re owed money.
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are reopening an investigation into whether a potential defect exists in certain Emeril and Tristar air fryers. A number of online complaints claim that the Emeril Lagasse Power AirFryer 360, Tristar Power AirFryer Oven and Tristar Power AirFryer XL models can turn themselves on, fill rooms with smoke and pose a serious fire risk. Consumers have also reported melting plastic, leaking oil, extremely high temperatures and issues with the fan not working properly. As the situation currently stands, there’s still an opportunity to get a class action filed that could seek compensation for any damage the fryers caused and help buyers recover some of the purchase price. But, before that can happen, attorneys need to speak with anyone who had their air fryer smoke or catch fire. So, if you’ve been having trouble with one of the air fryers mentioned above, be sure to keep it unplugged when it isn’t in use and head over to this page for the details.
I’m sure we’ve all had some experience with advertisers stretching the truth about a product. A new proposed class action is claiming, however, that Amazon blatantly misled and deceived consumers when touting the battery life of its Ring doorbells. The case points out that although Amazon advertises that the Ring doorbell has a battery life of between six and 12 months, this estimation was established under ideal circumstances and with minimal doorbell usage – and was more likely the maximum life of the battery. In real-world conditions, consumers say they can barely get two months out of a full charge, far less than the company advertised, according to the case. When the battery dies, the unit must be charged for several hours, and consumers’ homes are “vulnerable to the exact condition they purchased the [p]roduct to avoid,” namely being unable to see who is at or near the door, the suit says. For a full breakdown of the case, we have you covered.
Our settlements page is always being updated. Have you checked to see if you're covered by any open settlements? You can also check out the latest settlements as they happen by following us on Twitter.
For something that’s nothing more than empty space, we’ve discussed slack fill and its resultant lawsuits quite a bit over the years. The latest case to be filed over alleged slack-fill violations takes issue with Whole Foods’ 365 Long Grain & Wild Rice pilaf and claims that the empty space present in the packaging doesn’t serve a purpose aside from misleading consumers about how much product they’re getting. The case alleges the product’s slack fill takes up nearly as much of the box as the rice does, leaving consumers with a half-empty (or half-full if you’re feeling optimistic) bag of rice. The lawsuit contends that since the packaging doesn’t offer any way to see into the box, and because the lack of additional product doesn’t serve any purpose (like it would in a bag of chips), it amounts to a deliberate attempt on Whole Foods’ part to mislead customers. We can’t send you more rice, but we can offer more on the story right here.
To round out the trifecta of cases filed over allegedly false advertising, we’re bringing you a new suit involving the first brand that comes to everyone’s mind when you mention food storage bags: Ziploc. Typical Ziploc packaging includes a slew of statements touting the superior quality of the bags – “Power Shield,” “Grip ‘n Seal” technology, “unbeatable protection,” and the like. A new lawsuit is claiming, however, that the tests on which the manufacturer based these claims are “not relevant” or have a “limited applicability” to how a regular consumer would use the bags. The case goes on to further allege that the moisture loss test the company uses to back its “unbeatable freshness” claim ignores a number of ways a food product can spoil aside from loss of moisture. We don’t have the room here, but if you want to read up on the tests being conducted and what they actually mean for the bags, head on over to this page for more on the allegations.
~ Forward to a friend ~
Know someone who might be interested in our newsletter? Why not forward this email to them?