Recall Litigation Report

Subscribe to Recall Litigation Report
Recall

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is one of the most common types of fertility treatment, but the process is also extremely sensitive, invasive, and expensive. All of these factors come into play in a series of recent lawsuits following CooperSurgical’s December 5, 2023 recall of three lots of its embryo culture media—a substance that allows for the development of fertilized embryos. According to the company’s announcement, CooperSurgical had received a high number of customer complaints indicating that its embryo culture media caused impaired embryo development.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: CooperSurgical Faces Multiple Lawsuits Following Recall of IVF Embryo Culture Media

Recall

What a company knew and when is a critical question in any lawsuit involving recalled products. And the answer may be complicated, particularly when a manufacturer announces multiple recalls and expands previous recalls.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Mid-America Pet Food Faces Putative Class Action Over Recalled Pet Food Products

Recall

Consumer-driven lawsuits that follow a product recall often focus on what the company knew, when it knew it, and how it acted in response. And for companies who are hoping to avoid such a lawsuit, one of the biggest questions is what do they need to disclose to consumers and how far does that obligation reach? Certainly, companies cannot disclose what they did not know, and manufacturers are not required to warn for every conceivable risk, regardless of how remote. A recent class action, Gurkov v. Real Kosher Ice Cream Inc., No. 1:23-cv-06128 (E.D.N.Y Aug. 14, 2023), brings these issues into focus.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Real Kosher Ice Cream Sued Over Listeria Contamination

Recall

Products are commonly recalled due to a hazard (i.e., a risk of harm), even where large swaths of consumers have never had a problem with the products they purchased. When those consumers then file suit, they often seek to recover economic harm based on the “benefit of the bargain” theory—because the recalled products that they previously purchased are now worth less than what they paid for them. Where a consumer does experience the hazard (i.e., suffers personal injury or property damage) and subsequently files suit, that suit often seeks to recover not just economic harm but also for personal injury or property damage. Regardless of the nature of the harm, the alleged injury naturally precedes any recall of the product.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Consumer Lawsuit Alleges Electrolux Dehumidifier Caused Church Fire Years After Recall

Overpass-Aerial-View-GettyImages-947872874-Insights

Since the start of the year, voluntary recalls have led to early dismissals in several putative class action cases. Courts issuing these rulings have based their decision on one of two grounds: (1) the prudential mootness doctrine, and (2) lack of Article III standing.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Voluntary Recalls Continue To Lead To Early Dismissal

Recall

The second half of 2022 proceeded much like the first, with manufacturers busy navigating recalls and related litigation, although not necessarily in that order.

Philips CPAP/ BiPAP Machines Still Under Fire

Philips is still battling an onslaught of cases stemming from a June 2021 recall of CPAP and BiPAP breathing machines, including a consolidated consumer class action, In re Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, & Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation, No. 2:21-mc-01230 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 3014, and a medical device supplier suit, Baird Respiratory Therapy, Inc. v. Philips, 2:22-cv-00886 (E.D. Pa.). Since early 2021, there have been reports of over 260 deaths and thousands of health problems associated with the degrading polyurethane foam found in these devices, which was used inside millions of CPAP and BiPAP machines for over a decade. Philips claims that it has produced over 3.95 million repair kits and replacement devices to date and continues to research potential health risks to users from its machines. Despite these efforts, its legal troubles will continue into 2023, with even more consumer-facing lawsuits, including Braverman v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. 2:22-cv-7927, which was first filed at the end of December 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and is one of the first CPAP/BiPAP suits to allege the inhalation of the toxic foam particles caused mouth and tongue cancer. Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Year in Review (2022)

New parents have their hands full. Baby bouncy seats and swings offer busy caregivers a way to put an infant down but still allow him or her to see and interact with the surrounding environment. But recent recalls have led parents to think twice before going hands free.

On August 15, 2022, 4moms and the CPSC announced a recall of more than two million 4moms MamaRoo Baby Swings (versions 1.0  – 4.0) and over 220,000 RockaRoo Baby Rockers sold in the U.S. and Canada. According to the announcement, the restraint straps on the 4moms MamaRoo Baby Swing and RockaRoo Baby Rocker can dangle below the seat when the product is not in use, posing a strangulation hazard to crawling infants. On August 29, 2022, residents from North Carolina and South Carolina sued Thorley Industries, LLC (d/b/a 4moms) on behalf of nationwide class of purchasers of the recalled products in federal court in Pennsylvania.Continue Reading Litigation Recall Report: Nationwide Lawsuit Follows 4moms Recall of MamaRoo Baby Swing and RockaRoo Baby Rockers

Class actions following a product recall often focus on what the company allegedly knew before its products were taken off the market. But this is not always the case. A company can also come under fire for its actions after the recall and, specifically, what recourse it offers to consumers of recalled products.

On October 5, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) alerted the public of a manufacturing issue with certain lots of Ellume USA LLC’s (“Ellume”) COVID-19 Home Tests that had could lead to false positive results, and several weeks later, the FDA announced a Class I recall of these tests based on the higher-than-acceptable false positive test result. When it comes to COVID-19, a false positive could lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment of the actual cause of illness; further spread of COVID 19 when presumed positive people are grouped based on false test results; unnecessary COVID-19 treatment from health care providers, such as antiviral treatment, convalescent plasma, or monoclonal antibody treatment, which can result in side effects; disregard for the recommended precautions against COVID-19, including vaccination; and isolation, monitoring household or close contacts for symptoms, limiting contact with family or friends, and missing school or work.
Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Consumers Bring Class Action Lawsuit Against Ellume Refusing to Refund Recalled COVID-19 Home Tests

When a product is recalled, class action lawsuits are not the only threat. Recalled products can also give rise to droves of individual actions. This is the case for Exactech, Inc., a manufacturer of implants, instruments, and technologies for joint replacement.

Following an initial pause in elective procedures at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of hip arthroplasty surgeries has grown at a steady pace. These procedures commonly use acetabular liners to increase the stability of the total hip arthroplasty. Now, Exactech, a manufacturer of acetabular liners, is under fire nine months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) announced a Class II recall of the Exactech Connexion GXL acetabular polyethylene liner in June 2021. A Class II recall involves situations in which consumers may experience temporary or medically reversible health consequences or the likelihood of serious adverse health consequences is remote.
Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Exactech Joint Replacement Products