SharkNinja Operating LLC is facing a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the adequacy of its recent recall of 1.8 million multifunction pressure cookers. The Needham, Massachusetts-based company issued the recall on May 1 after discovering that the appliances’ lids could be opened during use, creating burn risks as hot contents escape.
Plaintiff Lauren Wolf-Bond, a California resident, filed the lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court arguing that SharkNinja’s recall was “grossly deficient” because it failed to properly address the defect and transferred liability to consumers. The recall offered consumers a replacement lid that could not be opened during cooking, but Wolf-Bond claims this solution doesn’t address the product’s devaluation.
Product Defect and Safety Concerns
The lawsuit centers on the Ninja Foodi OP300 Series Multi-Function Pressure Cooker, which was sold with promises that its lid had a lock safety feature preventing unlocking until pressure was released. Wolf-Bond argues that consumers paid a premium for this safety feature, expecting the product to function as intended.
The complaint alleges that SharkNinja either knew about the defect or “failed to adequately inspect and test the defective products to ensure they were free from serious defects before placing them on the market.” Alternatively, the lawsuit suggests the company may have discovered the defect through proper testing but concealed the results from consumers.
Inadequate Recall Response
Wolf-Bond criticizes SharkNinja’s recall notice for lacking transparency about inspection procedures and timing. The notice allegedly failed to disclose when products were inspected, how many inspections occurred, or explain how the company determined it was safe to continue using the product in air fryer mode without the replacement lid.
“This lack of transparency prevents consumers from fully understanding the scope of the defect and the potential risks associated with further use of the defective product,” the complaint states. Wolf-Bond argues that the defective products are now “worthless because [they] cannot be used without risk of serious injury.”
The lawsuit alleges breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of California consumer protection statutes. Siri & Glimstad LLP attorneys Christina Xenides, Lisa R. Considine, and Mason A. Barney represent Wolf-Bond, along with Kevin Laukaitis and Daniel Tomascik of Laukaitis Law LLC.
The case is Wolf-Bond v. SharkNinja Operating LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.