Kidde, First Alert Falsely Advertise ‘Smoke Alarms’ that Fail to Properly Warn of Common House Fires, Class Action Says
Last Updated on July 31, 2023
Pons et al. v. Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc. et al.
Filed: July 10, 2023 ◆§ 3:23-cv-03436-LB
A class action lawsuit claims Kidde Safety Equipment and First Alert have “placed profits over people” by falsely advertising their ionization-only devices as “smoke alarms.”
California
A proposed class action lawsuit claims Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc. and BRK Brands, Inc.—which respectively do business as Kidde Safety Equipment and First Alert—have “placed profits over people” by falsely advertising their ionization-only devices as “smoke alarms.”
Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
The 51-page lawsuit says the defendants deceptively market devices that use ionization technology as “smoke alarms,” even though the technology demonstrably fails to timely detect and warn of smoldering fires, the most common and particularly dangerous type of home fire.
“With deliberate disregard for the safety of the public,” the companies continue to falsely advertise and label the ionization-only devices as “smoke alarms” despite having known for decades that the products are unsuitable, by themselves, to reliably alert consumers to the presence of smoke from a smoldering fire, the suit alleges.
The case argues that only a device that uses photoelectric technology—the alternative to ionization technology—should be marketed as a “smoke alarm,” as photoelectric products are capable of quickly detecting smoke from smoldering fires and sounding an alarm early enough to give people time to evacuate a building.
Despite being labeled as “smoke alarms,” ionization-only devices like the ones sold by the defendants “sound too late (or do not sound at all)” in response to fires that have not yet progressed to produce large, hot flames, the complaint relays.
Per the filing, studies show that an ionization-only device often takes more than 30 minutes longer to sound compared to a photoelectric product.
“By this point, it is often already too late for a person to safely evacuate a home due to the buildup of smoke, toxic gases, and flame,” the lawsuit says.
Further, ionization-only devices are “notorious” for sounding false alarms when placed too close to ovens, showers or other household items that produce heat rapidly, the lawsuit explains.
“False alarms generated by ionization-only devices may prompt residents to disarm those devices, subjecting them to even greater risk of harm from future fires,” the suit describes.
The case charges that the companies have “callously” continued to market ionization-only devices as “smoke alarms” to an “unsuspecting public,” despite fire safety officials’ warnings, and even though the defendants are well-aware of the “all-too-frequent deaths and serious injuries caused by ionization-only devices failing to timely alert home occupants of a smoldering fire.”
According to the complaint, the companies’ ionization-only devices are usually found in the same display racks as photoelectric products but sold at a lower price, making them the “most attractive option” for shoppers. Though the back or bottom panels of some of the products’ packaging include a fine-print statement that “it is optimal to buy both kinds of alarms (ionization and photoelectric),” the filing argues that such a disclaimer is insufficient to inform reasonable consumers that the product is unsuitable for timely detection of all kinds of common home fires.
Experts estimate that approximately 90 percent of households in the United States are equipped solely with ionization-only devices, the lawsuit stresses.
“Today, tens of millions of American families are immediately at risk that 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. And even though the Defendants have for decades also mass-produced photoelectric devices—and ‘hybrid’ devices that contain both ionization and photoelectric technology—they have continued to profit by selling large quantities of ionization-only devices, notwithstanding the dire risks to the public. Each Defendant has, quite simply and callously, placed profits over people.”
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in California who purchased, whether online or in a retail store, a Kidde or First Alert product with ionization technology as its only means of detecting smoke or fire and labeled as a “smoke alarm,” including combination carbon monoxide and smoke alarm devices.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?
Did you know there's usually nothing you need to do to join, sign up for, or add your name to new class action lawsuits when they're initially filed?
Read more here: How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.