Defective Products

Exploding Samsung Top-Load Washing Machines

Samsung washing machine exploded

Lieff Cabraser represents owners in federal court in New Jersey in cases focusing on consumer complaints about Samsung top-loading washing machines that explode in the home, causing damage to walls, doors, and other equipment and presenting significant injury risks. Users report Samsung top-load washers exploding as early as the day of installation, while others have seen their machines explode months or even more than a year after purchase.

If you are concerned about your Samsung top-load washer or have experienced unbalanced loads or serious washer vibration contact us about your case

We are eager to learn of your experience with your Samsung top-load washing machine, even if your washer has not exploded. Please use the form below to contact a product defect lawyer at Lieff Cabraser. There is no cost or obligation for our review of your Samsung exploding washer concerns, and the information you provide will help us hold Samsung accountable for these dangerous alleged product defects.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What model washer do you have?

When did you purchase your washer?

Has your washer exploded?

Comments or additional information:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.


Further Info on the Exploding Samsung Washers

Beyond damage to the washing machines themselves, reports include descriptions of glass and other machine parts being shot across garages and laundry rooms at distances of over 15 feet, with consequent damage to other appliances, water heaters, and homes. Several Samsung top load washer owners report avoiding injury from the exploding debris and equipment pieces only by fortunate timing or physical blocking from other pieces of furniture or equipment, often mere moments after the owners had their heads or hands right by the machines.

Owners have reported Samsung washer explosions in regions as far-flung as California, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas, and owners have expressed concerns about warning other Samsung top-load washer owners to prevent serious injuries as well as similar property damage. One Texas owner reported an explosion so loud it could be heard outside the house, with a force so strong it knocked photos off the walls. Multiple YouTube videos recorded by Samsung top-load washer owners show exploded machines as well as damage and debris resulting from the blasts.

Contact National Product Defect Attorneys

If you have a Samsung top-load washer you are concerned may explode without warning, or own a Samsung washer that has already exploded, please use the form above to contact us. There is no cost or obligation for our review of your Samsung exploding washer concerns, and the information you provide will help us hold Samsung accountable for these dangerous alleged product defects.

Fitbit Heart Rate Monitors Fraud & Defects Lawsuit

Runners

Allegation: Fraud and misrepresentation

On January 5, 2016, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers nationwide against Fitbit, Inc. over complaints that heart rate monitors sold by Fitbit — the Fitbit Blaze, Charge HR and the Fitbit Surge — fail to accurately measure user heart rates. Complete the form below to learn more about your legal rights and help us hold Fitbit accountable.

On May 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint citing, among other things, a comprehensive new study conducted by researchers at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona revealed that the PurePulse™ heart rate monitors in the Fitbit Surge™ and Charge HR™ bear an “extremely weak correlation” with actual users’ heart rates as measured by a true electrocardiogram (ECG) and are “highly inaccurate during elevated physical activity.”

Fitbit Blaze, Charge HR, and Surge Heart Rate Monitors

Fitbit advertises its heart monitors as the most accurate wrist-worn wireless tracking devices on the market. Fitbit claims to have conducted “multiple internal studies to rigorously test” the accuracy of the wrist-mounted monitors.

The Fitbit Charge HR is an enhanced version of the Fitbit Charge activity tracker wristband that adds continuous heart-rate monitoring. Fitbit claims the Charge HR allows users to “maintain workout intensity, maximize training, and optimize health.”

The Fitbit Surge retails for about $100 more than the Charge HR. It is part smartwatch, part GPS running watch and includes all-day heart-rate tracking. Fitbit promotes the Surge as the “ultimate fitness superwatch” that allows athletes to maximize their training by keeping them “in the zone” and without “guessing” one’s heart rate.

Importance of Accuracy in Fitness Heart Rate Monitors

Heart rate monitors are used by athletes and others who need to reach or not exceed target heart rates. The use of monitors reporting inaccurate heart rates can lead to serious consequences.

As explained in a review of these devices by Wearable.com, “Heart rate training relies on exercising in different heart rate zones – each of which is a percentage of your maximum heart rate and stimulates different metabolic pathways and has different effects on the enzymes in the muscles. Once you know your zones, you can schedule workouts to make the greatest fitness gains without overworking your body, that is, if you are measuring the zones correctly.”

Consumer Complaints That Fitbit Heart Rate Monitors Are Defective Devices

As noted above, on January 5, 2016 consumers from California, Colorado, and Wisconsin filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Fitbit, Inc. alleging that Fitbit’s wrist-based “Charge HR” and “Surge” heart rate monitors do not and cannot consistently record accurate heart rates during the intense physical activity for which Fitbit expressly markets the devices in widespread advertising. The suit contends — and expert testing confirms — that the Heart Rate Monitors consistently mis-record heart rates by a significant margin, particularly during intense exercise. Not only are accurate heart readings important for those engaging in fitness, they can be critical to the health and well-being of people whose medical conditions require them to maintain (or not exceed) a certain heart rate.

Prior to the suit’s filing, consumers complained on online review sites and other forums that the Fitbit heart rate monitors were flawed because they provided unreliable heart rates readings when user were exercising.

These complaints were made by athletes who simultaneously tested their heart rates using the Fitbit devices and other types of heart rate monitors. In numerous instances, the consumers stated that their FitBit device gave heart rate readings during their exercise routines that were 20-50% less than the heart rates measured by these other devices.

Submit Your Fitbit Complaint

If you purchased the Fitbit Charge HR or Fitbit Surge for monitoring your heart rate, we welcome the opportunity to learn of your experience with the device. We will review your claim for free, confidentially, and with no obligation on your part.

We will respond to your inquiry as promptly as possible. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case. Please note that completion of this form cannot contractually obligate plaintiffs’ attorneys to represent you. We can only serve as your attorney if you and we both agree, in writing, that we will serve as your counsel.

First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What type of heart rate monitor did you purchase?

When did you purchase the device?

Where did you purchase the device (store name and location)?

Please list your date of birth:

Comments or additional information:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.

About Consumer Law

State and federal laws provide consumers with remedies for products that are defectively designed or manufactured, or which do not perform as advertised. In many cases, consumers can benefit from such laws even after a warranty period has expired.

The cost for a consumer to hire an attorney and file an individual lawsuit against the manufacturer of a defective product is often prohibitive. The law, however, does not leave the consumer powerless.

A small number of consumers may file a class action lawsuit, representing all consumers who purchased the defective product. A class action suit can provide a powerful and effective means for consumers to compel a corporation to acknowledge its legal responsibilities and provide just compensation to the class members.

About Lieff Cabraser

Recognized as “one of the nation’s premier plaintiffs’ firms” by The American Lawyer, Lieff Cabraser has successfully litigated and settled hundreds of class action lawsuits, including dozens of cases requiring manufacturers to refund the cost of worthless and defective products or costs the consumer incurred in repairing them, to fix the defects, and to extend consumer warranties.

Trademark Notice

Fitbit, Fitbit Charge HR, and Fitbit Surge are registered trademarks of Fibit, Inc. The use of these trademarks is solely for company and product identification and informational purposes. Fitbit, Inc. is not in any affiliated with Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein, LLP. Nothing on this website has been authorized or approved by Fitbit, Inc.

Mercedes-Benz Air Conditioning Mold Lawsuit

Mold

Issue: Noxious mold in Mercedes-Benz vehicle air-conditioning units

In May of 2016, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA on behalf of California consumers over complaints that various Mercedes vehicles dating as far back as 2003 model years and continuing to the present have a serious design defect that causes the air conditioning system to accumulate mold and mildew, causing extremely unpleasant odors to permeate the vehicles any time the air system is in use. The lawsuit seeks class action status and effective long-term repairs, as well as monetary damages for affected Mercedes-Benz owners and lessees, among other relief.

The vehicles at issue in this action include:

2008-2016 Mercedes C-Class2010-2016 Mercedes GLK-Class
2013-2016 Mercedes CLA-Class2006-2016 Mercedes M-Class
2003-2009 Mercedes CLKClass2006-2015 Mercedes R-Class
2004-2016 Mercedes CLS-Class2006-2016 Mercedes S-Class
2003-2016 Mercedes E-Class2003-2012 Mercedes SL-Class
2007-2016 Mercedes GL-Class2004-2010 Mercedes SLK-Class

Allegations in the Mercedes-Benz Climate System Lawsuit

The lawsuit includes allegations of fraud, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment, among other claims, and seeks effective long-term repairs as well as monetary damages for affected Mercedes-Benz owners and lessees. Owners note that the Mercedes’ heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems (“HVAC Systems”) in question are predisposed to produce these awful moldy odors under normal use conditions that would not cause nondefective HVAC Systems to produce such odors, and have led many owners and lessees to pay for repeated nonpermanent “fixes” including replacements of cabin air filters and ongoing system flushes with disinfectant sprays — extra costs that Mercedes refuses to cover even while the vehicles were still under warranty.

The complaint further alleges that Mercedes knew of the HVAC system defect through repair data, replacement part sales data, early consumer complaints made directly to Mercedes (collected by and reflected in the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s Office of Defect Investigation), via postings on public online vehicle owner forums, testing done in response to those complaints, aggregate data from Mercedes dealers, and other internal sources. Yet as noted in the complaint’s claims, despite this knowledge, Mercedes failed to disclose and in fact actively concealed the HVAC system defect from consumers and continued to market and advertise the vehicles as “sophisticated,” “comfortable,” and “state-of-the-art” vehicles, which — with noxious mold odors rendering them undrivable — they are not.

2017 Status of the Mercedes HVAC Mold Case

In March of 2017, Senior Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied in substantial part defendant Mercedes-Benz’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Judge Hatter denied Mercedes’ requested dismissal relating to issues of standing, and order that the case proceed with respect to the majority of plaintiffs’ claims. The case is proceeding into the discovery phase.

Contact Lieff Cabraser

If you own a Mercedes-Benz vehicle and have experienced unpleasant odors coming from the air conditioning/comfort control system, we would like to hear about your experience. Please use the form below to contact an automotive defect attorney at Lieff Cabraser.

The information you provide will be important in helping us hold Mercedes-Benz accountable for the alleged defects in its vehicles and any fraud or other misconduct relating thereto. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your complaint.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What model is your Mercedes-Benz?

What year is your Mercedes-Benz?

What was the date of purchase/lease?

Where did you purchase/lease the vehicle?

Please describe any mold problems you have experienced with your Mercedes:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.

Lexus Air Conditioning Mold Complaints

Mold

Issue: Vehicle air conditioner system mold problems

Lieff Cabraser is investigating consumer complaints about mold in the air conditioning units of Lexus vehicles. It has been alleged that the air conditioners are prone to developing mold, particularly in humid climates, and then giving off a bad/moldy odor when the AC units are turned on.

Complaints have included the following Lexus models: RX350, CT200H, ES300H and LS460.

Lexus’ website notes in numerous places that Lexus models are luxury vehicles, and specifically that “The pursuit of perfection starts at our core.”

Contact Lieff Cabraser

If you own a Lexus vehicle and have experienced unpleasant odors coming from the air conditioning/comfort control system, we would like to hear about your experience. Please use the form below to contact an automotive defect attorney at Lieff Cabraser.

The information you provide will be important in assisting us to learn of the full extent of the alleged defects in Lexus vehicles. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your complaint.

First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What model is your Lexus?

What year is your Lexus?

Comments or additional information:

Do you still have the broken window regulator in your possession?

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.

Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Litigation

drywall

Issue: Defective drywall products

Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represents a proposed class of builders who suffered economic losses as a result of the presence of Chinese-manufactured drywall in homes and other buildings they constructed. From 2005 to 2008, hundreds-of-millions of square feet of gypsum wallboard manufactured in China were exported to the U.S., primarily to the Gulf Coast states, and installed in newly-constructed and reconstructed properties.

After installation of this drywall, owners and occupants of the properties began noticing unusual odors, blackening of silver and copper items and components, and the failure of appliances, including microwaves, refrigerators, and air-conditioning units. Some residents of the affected homes also experienced health problems, such as skin and eye irritation, respiratory issues, and headaches.

Lieff Cabraser’s client, Mitchell Company, Inc., was the first to perfect service on Chinese defendant Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. (“TG”), and thereafter secured a default judgment against TG. Lieff Cabraser participated in briefing that led to the district court’s denial of TG’s motion to dismiss the class action complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. That order is currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, but plaintiffs are hopeful that the district court’s ruling will be affirmed.

On January 14, 2014, in a parallel proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Court affirmed the district court’s finding of personal jurisdiction over TG, holding that the “assertion of personal jurisdiction here comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” The appellate court noted that although “China may not favor personal jurisdiction over its manufacturers,” given the nature of the global economy, “it is in everyone’s interest to discourage the manufacturer and distribution of defective products.” [internal quotation omitted.]

Bosch Front-Loading Washer Mold

washing machine

Result: $55 cash payment
Year: 2015

Lieff Cabraser represented consumers nationwide in a class action lawsuit against BSH Home Appliances Corporation. The complaint alleged that certain front-loading Bosch and Siemens washing machines were defectively designed and, as a result, accumulated biofilm, mold, mildew, and bacteria, and produced foul odors. The specific washers subject to the class action were the Bosch Nexxt (sold from 2004 to 2009), Bosch Vision (sold from 2009 to 2011), and the Siemens UltraSense (sold from 2004 to 2008).

On July 27, 2015, the Court approved a settlement of the class action lawsuit that provided a $55 cash payment to all class members who submitted a timely, valid claim. The deadline to submit claims was May 28, 2015.

Viking Windows

window

Result: Up to $500 payment to class members
Year: 2010

Cartwright v. Viking Industries Allegedly Defective Windows Lawsuit

Lieff Cabraser represented California homeowners in a class action lawsuit which alleged that over one million Series 3000 windows produced and distributed by Viking between 1989 and 1999 were defective.

The plaintiffs charged that the windows were not watertight and allowed for water to penetrate the surrounding sheetrock, drywall, paint or wallpaper. Under the terms of a settlement approved by the Court in August 2010, all class members who submitted valid claims were entitled to receive as much as $500 per affected property.

Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid

Non injury product defect

Result: $650 payment or $1,300 certificate for purchase of new car
Year: 2011

In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litigation

Lieff Cabraser represented owners and lessees of Mercedes-Benz cars and SUVs equipped with the Tele-Aid system, an emergency response system which links subscribers to road-side assistance operators by using a combination of global positioning and cellular technology.

In 2002, the Federal Communications Commission issued a rule, effective 2008, eliminating the requirement that wireless phone carriers provide analog-based networks. The Tele-Aid system offered by Mercedes-Benz relied on analog signals. Plaintiffs charged that Mercedes-Benz committed fraud in promoting and selling the Tele-Aid system without disclosing to buyers of certain model years that the Tele-Aid system as installed would become obsolete in 2008.

In an April 2009 published order, the Court certified a nationwide class of all persons or entities in the U.S. who purchased or leased a Mercedes-Benz vehicle equipped with an analog-only Tele Aid system after August 8, 2002, and (1) subscribed to Tele Aid service until being informed that such service would be discontinued at the end of 2007, or (2) purchased an upgrade to digital equipment.

In September 2011, the Court approved a settlement that provided class members between a $650 check or a $750 to $1,300 certificate toward the purchase or lease of new Mercedes-Benz vehicle, depending upon whether or not they paid for an upgrade of the analog Tele Aid system and whether they still owned their vehicle.

In approving the settlement, U.S. District Court Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise stated,

I want to thank counsel for the … very effective and good work …. It was carried out with vigor, integrity and aggressiveness with never going beyond the maxims of the Court.

Dell Inspiron Notebooks

modern laptop notebook computer

Result: Settlement
Year: 2010

Carideo v. Dell, No. C06-1772 JLR (W.D. Wash.) Allegedly Defective Inspiron Computers Litigation

Lieff Cabraser represented consumers who owned Dell Inspiron notebook computer model numbers 1150, 5100, or 5160. The class action lawsuit complaint charged that the notebooks suffered premature failure of their cooling systems, power supply systems, and/or motherboards. In December 2010, the Court approved a settlement which provided class members that paid Dell for certain repairs to their Inspiron notebook computer a reimbursement of all or a portion of the cost of the repairs.

Trademark Notice

Dell and Inspiron are trademarks of Dell, Inc. These marks are used solely for informational and product identification purposes. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is not affiliated in any way with Dell, Inc.

Intuit QuickBooks Software

Abstract program code

Result: Free software upgrade provided
Year: 2009

Create-A-Card v. Intuit Allegedly Defective Software Litigation

Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represented business users of QuickBooks Pro for accounting that lost their QuickBooks data and other files due to faulty software code sent by Intuit, the producer of QuickBooks.

In September 2009, the Court granted final approval to a settlement that provided all class members who filed a valid claim with a free software upgrade and compensation for certain data-recovery costs.

Commenting on the settlement and the work of Lieff Cabraser on September 17, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Alsup stated

I want to come back to something that I observed in this case firsthand for a long time now. I think you’ve done an excellent job in the case as class counsel and the class has been well represented having your and your firm in the case.

Trademark Notice

“QuickBooks” is a trademark of Intuit. The use of this mark and any other marks is solely for informational and product identification purposes. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is not affiliated in any way with Intuit.