Defective Products

Louisiana Pacific Siding

hardboard siding

Result: $475 million settlement
Year: 1996

In re Louisiana-Pacific Inner-Seal Siding Litigation

Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of homeowners with defective exterior siding on their homes. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, and violation of consumer protection statutes.

In 1996, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones entered an Order, Final Judgment and Decree granting final approval to a nationwide settlement requiring Louisiana-Pacific to provide funding up to $475 million to pay for inspection of homes and repair and replacement of failing siding over the next seven years.

LG Refrigerators

Non injury product defect

Result: Nationwide settlement
Year: 2012

McLennan v. LG Electronics USA Refrigerator Overheating Allegations

Lieff Cabraser represented consumers who alleged several LG refrigerator models had a faulty design that caused the interior lights to remain on even when the refrigerator doors were closed (identified as the “light issue”), resulting in overheating and food spoilage.

In March 2012, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of the nationwide class action lawsuit. The settlement provides that LG reimburse class members for all out-of-pocket costs (parts and labor) to repair the light issue prior to the mailing of the class notice and extends the warranty with respect to the light issue for 10 years from the date of the original retail purchase of the refrigerator. The extended warranty covers in-home refrigerator repair performed by LG and, in some cases, the cost of a replacement refrigerator.

In approving the settlement, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martini stated,

The Settlement in this case provides for both the complete reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses for repairs fixing the Light Issue, as well as a warranty for ten years from the date of refrigerator purchase. It would be hard to imagine a better recovery for the Class had the litigation gone to trial. Because Class members will essentially receive all of the relief to which they would have been entitled after a successful trial, this factor weighs heavily in favor of settlement.

Intel Pentium Processors

Computers

Result: Settlement valued at $1 billion
Year: 1995

In re Intel Pentium Processor Litigation

Lieff Cabraser served as one of two court appointed Co Lead Class Counsel, and negotiated a settlement, approved by the Court in June 1995, involving both injunctive relief and damages having an economic value of approximately $1 billion.

Hurd Millwork Window Defects

window

Result: $5.3 million settlement
Year: 1998

We served as one of three lead counsel for a class of persons/entities who own property in the western U.S. in which Hurd Millwork Company, Inc. (“Hurd”) sealed insulated glass windows and/or doors have been installed.

Plaintiffs alleged that Hurd, a manufacturer of premium insulated windows and doors, represented and warranted that its inert gas-filled products were filled with inert argon or krypton gases, when in fact, Hurd transported these products to the western U.S. in such a manner that allowed the gases to escape. The defendant denied all allegations.

In December of 1998, the Superior Court of Spokane County, Washington granted final approval of a $5.3 million settlement in the class action lawsuit. The consumer claim filing deadline has now passed, and payments have been disbursed.

Chrysler Minivan Latches

Non injury product defect

Result: 3.8 million vehicles recalled to replace faulty rear latches
Year: 1995

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. Defective Minivan Latches Litigation

In 1995, the district court approved a $200+ million settlement enforcing Chrysler’s comprehensive minivan rear latch replacement program, and to correct alleged safety problems with Chrysler’s pre-1995 designs.

As part of the settlement, Chrysler agreed to replace the rear latches with redesigned latches. The settlement was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (1998).

Mobil AV-1 Aviation Oil

Non injury product defect

Result: $12.5 million settlement
Year: 1995

Gross v. Mobil Allegedly Defective Engine Oil

Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel in this nationwide action involving an estimated 2,500 aircraft engine owners whose engines were affected by Mobil AV-1, an aircraft engine oil. Plaintiffs alleged claims for strict liability, negligence, misrepresentation, violation of consumer protection statutes, and for injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction requiring Defendant Mobil Corporation to provide notice to all potential class members of the risks associated with past use of Defendants’ aircraft engine oil. In addition, Plaintiffs negotiated a proposed Settlement, granted final approval by the Court in November 1995, valued at over $12.5 million, under which all Class Members were eligible to participate in an engine inspection and repair program, and receive compensation for past repairs and for the loss of use of their aircraft associated with damage caused by Mobil AV-1.

GM Pickup Fuel Tanks

Non injury product defect

Result: Settlement valued at $600 million
Year: 1995

In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation

The side-saddle fuel tank design was installed in over 10 million General Motors trucks. These included all 1973-87 GM full-size pickups and cab-chassis trucks and some 1988-91 dual cab or rv chassis. The problem was that a frame-mounted fuel tank mounted outside the frame rails would be susceptible to tank leakage from any side impact and lead to an explosion.

GM was confronted with numerous state class actions, which were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the Federal District Court in Philadelphia in 1993. The MDL involved 49 states, while a separate class action continued in Texas.

Both class actions were settled by offering $1000 coupons good towards the purchase of a new GM truck or van to current owners of C/K pickups. Subsequently there was a second and then third similar class action settlement. The coupon/claims distribution period is over. GM’s side saddle gas tank hotline is 1-800-341-4462. If you have been injured in a GM vehicle gas tank explosion, click here for more information.

Recap of the Class Action Lawsuit

The Court approved the class action settlement on behalf of all persons who owned, as of July 4, 1996, GM Pickup Trucks. For purposes of the settlement, “GM Pickup Truck(s)” meant:

(i) 1973 through 1986 model year General Motors full-size pickup truck or chassis cab models of the “C” or “K” series which include the following models: Chevrolet C10, C20, C30, K10, K20, K30 and GMC Truck C1500, C2500, C3500, K1500, K2500, K3500, and

(ii) 1987 through 1991 model year General Motors full-size pickup truck or chassis cab models of the “R” or “V” series, which include the following models: Chevrolet R10, R20, R30, R2500, R3500, V10, V20, V30, V2500, V3500 and GMC Truck R1500, R2500, R3500, V1500, V2500 and V3500.

GM Pickup Trucks that have been scrapped are not included.

Class members were eligible to request a Settlement Certificate for each eligible vehicle described above that they owned as of July 4, 1996.

Poz-Lok Pipes

piping

Result: $14.5 million settlement
Year: 2004

Foothill/DeAnza Community College District v. Northwest Pipe Company

In June 2004, the court approved the creation of a settlement fund of up to $14.5 million for property owners nationwide with Poz-Lok fire sprinkler piping that fails. Since 1990, Poz-Lok pipes and pipe fittings were sold in the U.S. as part of fire suppression systems for use in residential and commercial buildings.

After leaks in Poz-Lok pipes caused damage to its DeAnza Campus Center building, Foothill/DeAnza Community College District in California retained Lieff Cabraser to file a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of Poz-Lok. The college district charged that Poz-Lok pipe had manufacturing and design defects that resulted in the premature corrosion and failure of the product.

Under the settlement, owners whose Poz-Lok pipes are leaking today, or over the next 15 years, may file a claim for compensation.

ABS Pipes

piping

Result: $70 million settlement
Year: 1998

ABS pipe is rigid, black, non-pressurized plastic pipe used to drain sinks, tubs, showers, toilets, washing machines and dishwashers commonly used in residential construction as waste, drain, and vent pipe. In the ABS pipe class actions, we represented plaintiffs who alleged that, during certain periods of time between the years 1984 and 1990, ABS pipe manufactured by Polaris Pipe Co., Gable Plastics, Inc., Centaur Mfg., Inc., dba Phoenix Extrusion Co., and Apache Plastics, Inc. contained plastic resin that could cause the ABS pipe to crack and ultimately leak.

Each manufacturer used allegedly unsuitable resin during different periods. Plaintiffs claimed that this allegedly defective ABS pipe could crack circumferentially at the glue line where the pipe was cemented into the socket of the fitting, and that such cracks could ultimately result in leaks. Plaintiffs sought relief in the litigation based upon claims for strict liability and negligence.

On January 16, 1998, the Contra Costa County, California Superior Court granted preliminary approval to eight class action settlements valued at approximately $70 million. On May 14, 1998, Judge Simons granted final approval to all eight settlements, finding them to be fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the class members.

Dell Inspiron 5150 Notebooks

Non injury product defect

Result: 100% cash refund
Year: 2006

Lundell v. Dell Inspiron Power Problems Lawsuit

Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel for consumers who experienced power problems with the Dell Inspiron 5150 notebook.

In December 2006, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of the class action which extended the one-year limited warranty on the notebook for a set of repairs related to the power system.

In addition, class members who paid Dell or a third party for repair of the power system of their notebook were entitled to a 100% cash refund from Dell.

American Cemwood

Non injury product defect

Result: $140 million in settlements
Year: 2003

Richison v. American Cemwood Corp. Defective Shakes Lawsuit

Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel for an estimated nationwide class of 30,000 owners of homes and other structures on which defective Cemwood Shakes were installed.

In November 2003, the Court granted final approval to a $75 million Phase 2 settlement in the American Cemwood roofing shakes national class action litigation. This amount was in addition to a $65 million partial settlement approved by the Court in May 2000, and brought the litigation to a conclusion. The case is resolved, and the deadline for submitting claims has expired.

Carrier Furnaces

home blueprint

Result: 20-year enhanced warranty of free service & free parts
Year: 2008

Carrier, et al. Condensing Furnace Consumer Class Actions

In April 2008, the Court granted final approval to a nationwide settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by current and past owners of high-efficiency furnaces manufactured and sold by Carrier Corporation and equipped with polypropylene-laminated condensing heat exchangers (“CHXs”).

Carrier sold the furnaces under the Carrier, Bryant, Day & Night and Payne brand-names. Plaintiffs alleged that starting in 1989 Carrier began manufacturing and selling high efficiency condensing furnaces manufactured with a secondary CHX made of inferior materials. Plaintiffs alleged that as a result, the CHXs, which Carrier warranted and consumers expected to last for 20 years, failed prematurely.

The settlement provides an enhanced 20-year warranty of free service and free parts for consumers whose furnaces have not yet failed. The settlement also offers a cash reimbursement for consumers who already paid to repair or replace the CHX in their high-efficiency Carrier furnaces.

An estimated three million or more consumers in the U.S. and Canada purchased the furnaces covered under the settlement. Plaintiffs valued the settlement to consumers at over $300 million based upon the combined value of the cash reimbursement and the estimated cost of an enhanced warranty of this nature.

Polybutylene Piping

piping

Result: $950 million settlement
Year: 1995

Cox v. Shell Defective Polybutylene Piping Case

Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of approximately 6 million owners of property equipped with defective polybutylene plumbing systems and yard service lines.

In November 1995, the Court approved a settlement involving an initial commitment by Defendants of $950 million in compensation for past and future expenses incurred as a result of pipe leaks, and to provide replacement pipes to eligible claimants.

The settlement claim filing deadline expired in 2009.

Masonite Hardboard Siding

hardboard siding

Result: Over $1 billion settlement
Year: 1998

Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide Class of an estimated 4 million homeowners with allegedly defective hardboard siding manufactured and sold by Masonite Corporation, a subsidiary of International Paper, installed on their homes.

The Court certified the class in November 1995, and the Alabama Supreme Court twice denied extraordinary writs seeking to decertify the Class, including in Ex Parte Masonite, 681 So. 2d 1068 (Ala. 1996). A month-long jury trial in 1996 established the factual predicate that Masonite hardboard siding was defective under the laws of most states.

The case settled on the eve of a second class-wide trial, and in 1998, the Court approved a settlement. Under a claims program established by the settlement that ran through 2008, class members with failing Masonite hardboard siding installed and incorporated in their property between January 1, 1980, and January 15, 1998, were entitled to make claims, have their homes evaluated by independent inspectors, and receive cash payments for damaged siding.

Combined with settlements involving other alleged defective home building products sold by Masonite, the total cash paid to homeowners exceeded $1 billion.

Defective Faulty Notebook Computers

modern laptop notebook computer

Issue: Defective notebook and laptop computers

Defective Notebook Computers and Consumer Legal Rights

Computers are inherently complex devices. Unfortunately, defects arise in the production of all high-tech devices, particularly when such devices are miniaturized for such goals as light weight combined with maximal efficiency. There are multiple notebook computer recalls every year as a result of defects in such components as notebook computer screens, optical CD drives, and DVD drives, as well as internal hard drives, flash memory storage units, power adapters, and batteries.

In addition, defective computer products are often sold despite a manufacturer knowing or learning of defects, and without the manufacturer announcing a recall. In these situations, consumers incur substantial expenses replacing defective parts and devices after a warranty has expired. Consumers also frequently face significant inconveniences in having to send or bring their computers in for repair. Another frequent problem is an attendant destruction and loss of crucial data.

Legal Rights of Consumers

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 the 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 that 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.

Examples of Successful Class Action Lawsuits on Behalf of Consumers with Faulty Computers and Computer Products

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a national law firm that represents plaintiffs, including consumers who purchased defective computers. We have obtained significant settlements for consumers that were sold defective computers and computer products, including all out-of-pocket costs for replacing the defective parts.

Our recently resolved consumer lawsuits for faulty computers and computer parts include:

Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 Notebook

We represented owners of the Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 notebook computer who alleged failures in in power-supply, display, and hard drive. The settlement provided an extended warranty for all Satellite Pro 6100 computers, cash compensation for certain repairs, and reimbursement for certain out-of-warranty repair expenses.

Dell Inspiron 5150 Notebook

In this class action lawsuit against Dell, Inc, Lieff Cabraser represented a class of plaintiffs who alleged a series of defects with the Dell Inspiron 5150 notebook. In September 2006, the Court granted preliminarily approval of a settlement that provides class members with an extended one-year limited warranty and a 100% cash refund for any charges they incurred, including shipping costs, for earlier repair of their notebook.

Apple Power Adapters For The G3 iBook and Other Powerbook Computers

We represented consumers whose specified Apple power adapter failed within three years after purchase or receipt of an adapter under Apple’s “black brick” recall program. We successfully negotiated a settlement that included a cash refund payment for class members who paid for replacement adapters and store certificates for class members that lacked proof of purchase of their replacement adapter or incurred multiple adapter failures.

Toshiba Notebooks

Lieff Cabraser successfully negotiated a settlement with Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. to provide relief for owners of certain Toshiba Notebook computers with screens that tended to flicker or dim. Under the settlement, owners who paid to have the flicker issue repaired could recover the cost of that repair. In addition, Toshiba agreed to extend the length of the warranty by 18 months on the covered models.

Contact Lieff Cabraser

Many of our cases are initiated by consumers that contact our firm. Please use the form below to submit a complaint about a product to our firm. We will review your claim without charge or obligation and in confidence.

Lieff Cabraser agrees to protect your name and all confidential information you submit against disclosure, publication or unauthorized use to the full extent under the law.

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?

Comments or additional information:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Computer Defects & Faulty Electronic Devices

Computers

Issue: Defective computers and electronic products

Under Pressure to Bring Computers and Other Consumer Electronic Products to Market, Manufacturers Sell Defective Products

Manufacturers have a duty to produce products that perform as promised or advertised. Consumers properly expect that the products they buy have been properly tested in research labs or by small groups of consumers before the products are sold in mass.

However, from PCs, notebooks, and tablets to smartphones, smart TVs, game consoles and other electronic gadgets, manufacturers too often ship products that lack necessary software, are incomplete or simply defective “because of pressure to get them on store shelves.”

As noted by CMS Wire, “in the rush to market products, manufacturers of everything from game consoles and computers to cameras and cell phones have turned loyal customers into consumer guinea pigs.”

Consumers, the article observes, “more often end up as product testers – without disclosure and without compensation. They may even unwittingly pay to conduct research for the companies that manufacture some of the most popular products in retail stores.”

In certain cases, the manufacturer knew the product was defective yet still sold it and refused to announce a recall after receiving consumer complaints. In this situation, consumers are forced to incur substantial costs to replace parts and devices after the warranty expires. Consumers are also often faced with the inconvenience of having to send or bring their computers or other electronic products in for repair, as well as the possibility of the loss of important data.

Defective Products and Consumer Protection Law

State and federal laws provide consumers with remedies for products that were defectively designed or manufactured or do not perform as advertised. This is true in many cases even after the warranty period has expired.

The cost for a consumer to hire an attorney and file an individual lawsuit against the manufacturer of the 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 that 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.

Examples of Successful Class Action Lawsuits on Behalf of Consumers with Faulty Computers and Other Consumer Electronic Products

Lieff Cabraser represents consumers nationwide. We have obtained significant settlements for consumers sold defective products, including desktop computers, notebooks, monitors, LCD screens, hard drives, and power adapters and batteries, helping consumers obtain new or extended warranties and recovering their out-of-pocket costs for replacing the defective parts.

Our successful consumer lawsuits for faulty computers and other consumer electronic goods include:

Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 Notebook

We represented owners of the Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 notebook computer who alleged failures in in power-supply, display, and hard drive. The settlement provided an extended warranty for all Satellite Pro 6100 computers, cash compensation for certain repairs, and reimbursement for certain out-of-warranty repair expenses.

Dell Inspiron 5150 Notebook

In this class action lawsuit against Dell, Inc, Lieff Cabraser represented a class of plaintiffs who alleged a series of defects with the Dell Inspiron 5150 notebook. In September 2006, the Court granted preliminarily approval of a settlement that provides class members with an extended one-year limited warranty and a 100% cash refund for any charges they incurred, including shipping costs, for earlier repair of their notebook.

Apple Power Adapters For The G3 iBook and Other Powerbook Computers

We represented consumers whose specified Apple power adapter failed within three years after purchase or receipt of an adapter under Apple’s "black brick" recall program. We successfully negotiated a settlement that included a cash refund payment for class members who paid for replacement adapters and store certificates for class members that lacked proof of purchase of their replacement adapter or incurred multiple adapter failures.

Toshiba Notebooks

Lieff Cabraser successfully negotiated a settlement with Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. to provide relief for owners of certain Toshiba Notebook computers with screens that tended to flicker or dim. Under the settlement, owners who paid to have the flicker issue repaired could recover the cost of that repair. In addition, Toshiba agreed to extend the length of the warranty by 18 months on the covered models.

Contact Lieff Cabraser

Many of our cases are initiated by consumers that contact our firm. Please use the form below to submit a complaint about a product to our firm. We will review your claim without charge or obligation and in confidence.

Lieff Cabraser agrees to protect your name and all confidential information you submit against disclosure, publication or unauthorized use to the full extent under the law.Please note: 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?

Comments or additional information:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Navistar MaxxForce Diesel Engines

truck engine

Issue: Alleged defect in engine emissions system
Result: Settlement valued at $135 million

On January 3, 2020, Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an Order granting final approval to the proposed $135m settlement of multidistrict litigation brought on behalf of plaintiff truck owners and lessees alleging that Navistar, Inc. and Navistar International, Inc. sold or leased 2011-2014 model year vehicles equipped with certain MaxxForce 11- or 13-liter diesel engines equipped with a defective EGR emissions system. Judge Gottschall ruled that the proposed class action settlement which had been submitted to the Court on May 28, 2019, was fair, reasonable, and adequate in addressing plaintiffs’ claims. Owners and lessees of the affected trucks have until May 11, 2020 to file their settlement claims at the official website.

The $135 million settlement provides class members with up to $2,500 per truck or up to $10,000 rebate off a new truck depending on months of ownership or lease, or the option to seek up to $15,000 per truck in out-of-pocket damages caused by the alleged defect.

Additional details about the settlement, compensation options, and timelines are all now available at the settlement website: https://www.maxxforce11and13.com/. Online claim filing will be available at that website within about six weeks. As noted, the deadline to file any claims is May 11, 2020. As soon as the window opens to file claims, the court-appointed settlement administrator will mail a notice to every person it believes to be a member of the class and for which it can find contact information.

If you have any questions about the settlement, please contact the court-appointed settlement administrator at info@MaxxForce11and13.com or 1-833-222-1176. You can also use the form below to contact us with any questions about the settlement in this case.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What model is your truck?

What year is your truck?

What questions do you have about the settlement?

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

LG Washers

washing machine

Lieff Cabraser represented consumers who filed a class action lawsuit against LG charging that certain LG front-loading automatic washing machines are defective products. A Settlement was reached in the lawsuit, which alleged LG-brand front-loading washing machines had an undisclosed propensity to develop a mold and/or mold-related odor problem.

Owners who experienced a mold and/or mold-related odor problem, were entitled to compensation in the form of either (1) a cash payment of thirty-five ($35.00) in the form of a check, or (2) a Washer Rebate Certificate worth one hundred and five dollars ($105.00), redeemable the purchase of a new washer from an authorized washer retailer. Please visit the LG washer mold claim settlement website for more information.

Sears Washers

washing machine

Lieff Cabraser represents consumers who have filed a class action lawsuit against Sears charging that certain Sears front-loading automatic washing machines are defective products.

If you own a Sears front-load washing machine and it has developed mold, mildew, or foul odors, we wish to learn more about your experience. We will review your claim for free and without any obligation on your part.

We will review your claim without fee or obligation, and Lieff Cabraser agrees to protect your name and all confidential information you submit against disclosure, publication or unauthorized use to the full extent under the law.

Please note: 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 model LG washer do you have?

When did you purchase your LG washer?

Please describe any mold problems:

Comments or additional information:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Whirlpool Front-Load Washer Mold

washing machine

Consumer lawsuits charged that certain Whirlpool Duet front load washers purchased prior to 2010 have a defective design that leads to the buildup of mold and mildew and produces foul odors. As a result of the alleged defects, owners of Duet washers have been required to run extra cleaning cycles, leave the door open between uses, and wipe down the washer after every use with bleach.

Class members who experienced mold or odor with their washers had until October 11, 2016 to file their claims. Visit washersettlement.com for more information.

The lawsuits argued that Whirlpool was aware of the problem with its Duet washers, yet did not fix the problem. In fact, Whirlpool sought to profit from the defect. The company instructed consumers — only after purchase — to regularly buy and use Affresh, a product marketed and sold by Whirlpool, to reduce the effects of the mold and mildew issue. This cleaning product, however, did not fix the problem.

Settlement Reached Over Whirlpool, Kenmore, and Maytag Moldy Washers

A settlement was reached with Whirlpool Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co. in several class action lawsuits claiming that certain front-loading washing machines manufactured between 2001 and 2010 fail to adequately self-clean themselves of laundry residue, resulting in mold or mildew buildup that can cause bad odors and ruined laundry. The settlement received final approval on September 23, 2016.