Not as Advertised? Rust-Oleum ‘Restore’ Deck Coating Products Don’t Hold Up, Class Action Claims

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Certain Rust-Oleum acrylic coating and resurfacing products are “defective and prone to failure” in that they cannot properly adhere to underlying surfaces and otherwise “prematurely degrade, chip, peel, flake, strip” and deteriorate, a proposed class action alleges.

The products at issue in the 48-page lawsuit—Rust-Oleum’s Restore Deck Start Wood Primer, Restore 2X One Coat Solid Stain and Restore 4X Deck Coat—perform contrary to both how they’re advertised and the representations on product labels and online, and have caused significant damage to consumers’ decks and other surfaces, the complaint claims. According to the suit, these allegations are “nothing new and should come as no surprise to Rust-Oleum.”

“As consumers have now discovered, the Restore Products do not live up to Rust-Oleum’s promises and affirmative representations,” the lawsuit out of New York alleges. “Rather than providing years of protection, the Restore Products deteriorate in a short time period. Consumers also soon discover that the defective Restore Products requires [sic] removal and replacement of the product coat in its entirety, since it fails to protect the deck itself.”

As the lawsuit tells it, the Rust-Oleum Restore products, rather than put an end to “the cycle of repainting and replacing,” only make matters worse. Moreover, consumers who complain to Rust-Oleum about the alleged issues with the Restore coating products are told the company will only refund the purchase price or replace the items with “more defective Restore Products,” the case claims.

For its part, Rust-Oleum, the suit alleges, has known that its Restore products are “defective and prone to failure” yet has nonetheless continued to market and sell them to “thousands upon thousands of unsuspecting consumers” who, as a result, have incurred “extensive damage to their decks and other structures” and monetary losses. 

“Due to the flaws in the Restore Products, Class members will continue to expend considerable costs and time in attempts to repair the problems,” the complaint asserts. “Many likely will end up having to pay for a total replacement of their decks and other structures at some point.”

The lawsuit claims Rust-Oleum has known of the issues with its Restore products based on allegations centered on similar items, pre-sale testing of the products and consumer complaints. 

Acrylic coatings have become popular resurfacing options for homeowners given the products are said to offer thicker, longer-lasting coating than paints or stains, the case says. Per the suit, resurfacers, such as Rust-Oleum’s Restore products, are meant to extend the life of a surface by “repairing splinters, filling cracks, and coating the deck” so as to impart a revitalized or like-new look. Broadly, resurfacing products afford consumers a way to avoid the hassle of “traditional upkeep and/or the great expense and effort” of replacing decks and other structures altogether, and are thus more expensive than regular paints and stains, the lawsuit says. 

Included in the complaint are pictures posted online by consumers that purport to show that Rust-Oleum’s advertising, marketing and product label claims for the Restore acrylic coatings are false.

“Had rust-Oleum not withheld and omitted material information about the design, reliability, and performance of the Restore Products, Plaintiff and the members of the Class would not have purchased them, or would have paid considerably less for them than they did,” the suit charges. 

The complaint can be found below. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.