Jan 11, 2022 | Consumer Protection
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission & Three Leading Elevator Manufacturers Announce Recalls Of Residential Elevators Due To Industry-Wide Issue Of Child Entrapment Hazard; Risk Of Serious Injury Or Death To Young Children
Manufacturers Providing Free Safety Devices To Address Hazardous Gap Spaces Between Home Elevator Doors
On January 11, 2022, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) and Bella Elevator, LLC, Inclinator Company of America, and Savaria Corporation, have announced three separate, voluntary recalls of about 69,000 residential elevators.
Young children can become entrapped in the space between the exterior landing (hoistway) door and the interior elevator car door or gate if there is a hazardous gap, and suffer serious injuries or death when the elevator is called to another floor.
Consumers should keep unsupervised young children away from the recalled residential elevators and contact the manufacturers for instructions on how to measure for space guards to correct any hazardous gap. Space guards will be provided free of charge and assistance with space guard installation will be provided on request.
Bella Elevator, Inclinator Company of America, and Savaria Corporation have agreed that all current manufacturing and distribution of future residential elevators will comply with applicable voluntary safety standards to eliminate the young child entrapment hazard. The CPSC previously warned consumers about residential elevators in July 2021.
For additional information about the residential elevator recalls, please click on the following:
Bella Elevator LLC Recalls Residential Elevators Due to Child Entrapment Hazard; Risk of Serious Injury or Death to Young Children
Inclinator Company of America Recalls Residential Elevators Due to Child Entrapment Hazard; Risk of Serious Injury or Death to Young Children
Savaria Corporation Recalls Residential Elevators Due to Child Entrapment Hazard; Risk of Serious Injury or Death to Young Children
Source: CPSC.gov
If you have been the victim of a defective or misleading consumer product and/or product recall, please complete the form on the right or e-mail [email protected] for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Jan 11, 2022 | Consumer Protection
On January 7, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed against Omnitracs, LLC (“Omnitracs”) in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff used to work as a truck driver in Illinois. Omnitrac’s Critical Event Video (“CEV”) hardware was equipped in Plaintiff’s truck and monitored the Plaintiff and his facial geometry. Omnitracs, allegedly, captured, collected, or otherwise obtained Plaintiff’s facial geometry and the facial geometry of others similarly situated without following the requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
One of the Omnitrac’s products is an in-vehicle camera with the technology to detect driver behavior. Omnitrac’s technology, according to the lawsuit, identifies inattentive driving behavior that may be caused, for example, by distraction, driver fatigue, or drowsiness. The Defendant’s facial mapping technology, allegedly, collects scans of a driver’s facial geometry to identify a driver’s attentiveness.
The CEV hardware, according to the complaint, provides complete visibility of the entire cab, as well as details of the driver’s face, eyes, and hands to identify drowsiness, sleep, phone use, cigarette use, seatbelt use, and other safety-critical behaviors, as certain critical trigger events.
During the relevant time period (i.e., between January 7, 2017 and the present), Defendant Omnitracs, allegedly, collected scans of Plaintiff’s facial geometry to analyze his driving behavior, despite never having informed the Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that scans of his facial geometry or his biometric data were being collected.
Omnitracs also, allegedly, never obtained Plaintiff’s informed written consent to collect scans of his facial geometry or his biometric data and never informed Plaintiff in writing of the purpose and length of time for which Defendant Omnitracs would collect scans of the Plaintiff’s facial geometry.
For more information about the collection, use and/or dissemination of biometric information, please click here.
If you believe your biometric data has been illegally collected, stored, used, disclosed, transmitted or disseminated by a private entity, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., [email protected], for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Jan 11, 2022 | Consumer Protection
Newell Brands Inc. & Sunbeam Products, Inc. Subject Of Class Action For The Alleged Marketing, Manufacture And/Or Sale Of Consumer Products Containing Warranty Statements That Condition The Continued Validity Of A Warranty On The Use Of Only An Authorized Repair Service
On January 7, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District Of Massachusetts, against Newell Brands Inc. and Sunbeam Products, Inc. for the manufacture, marketing, and/or sale of consumer products under the Sunbeam, Crockpot, Oyster, and Mr. Coffee brand names with warranty statements that constitute an alleged, illegal “tying arrangement” – a circumstance which conditions a consumer product’s warranty on the use of a specific repair service.
The complaint, among other things, alleges that the Newell and Sunbeam Defendants “exacerbate these violations by stating on the outside of the product packaging that the [p]roducts include a one-year limited warranty, but the unlawful repair restriction is not revealed to the consumer until after the point of sale.”
According to the class action complaint, “a reasonable consumer would rely on the warranty mentioned on the outside of the packaging,” and if class members knew about the “unlawful repair restriction, they would not have purchased the [p]roduct, or would have paid significantly less for it.” The Defendants’ conduct is an an alleged violation of the tying prohibition of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
For more information about repair restrictions and illegal “tying arrangements,” please click here.
If you feel that you have been prevented or obstructed from having a consumer product repaired using third-party replacement parts or independent repair shops or facilities, or that your warranty was voided, or will be voided, because of independent repair, please complete the form on the right or e-mail [email protected] for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
