Plaintiff Allen Garrard says Restore products suffer from more chipping, peeling and flaking than other comparable products.
In addition, Garrard claims that the Restore products deteriorate quicker than comparable products and do not give enhanced protection that is superior to other items on the market.
Garrard says he purchased several Restore products for $527.19 at a Sutherland’s store in Missouri in June 2017. He alleges he applied the Restore products to his cedar wood deck in September 2017.
He states that by May 2018, he noticed the Restore paint was detaching from numerous spots on the deck, which he subsequently repaired. By January 2019, he saw the Restore paint detaching, peeling and flaking in several locations on the deck, including the floor and railings.
The Rust-Oleum class action lawsuit claims that the company markets its 4X product as a “high build, water-based acrylic coating designed to resurface aged wood and concrete decks, patios, and walkways.” The plaintiff states that Rust-Oleum also claims that its 4X product is “4X thicker than ordinary paint” and contains a “premium ultra-solid coating.”
In addition, the company markets its Restore 2X as “2X thicker than ordinary paint” that “requires only one coat for total coverage” and provides “superior water repellency” with special “algae and mildew resistant coating,” according to the Rust-Oleum class action lawsuit.
“Rust-Oleum knew or should have known about these conditions related to Restore Products and omitted the information and/or concealed it from consumers,” the plaintiff alleges.
Garrard states that in a similar lawsuit, In re: Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, the company was accused of misrepresenting the efficacy of the Restore products and concealed facts related to their functionality. That case settled in 2016.
Thus, this litigation put Rust-Oleum “on notice” about the defects in its other Restore items, which would include the products at hand.
The plaintiff maintains that online complaints about Rust-Oleum’s products are unbridled, which would demonstrate that the plaintiff’s experience with the product is not unique.
Garrard states that there have been more than 1,600 comments from customers, most of which discussed their disappointment with the performance of the Restore items.
“Rust-Oleum’s marketing materials misrepresented the qualities of the Restore Products, and the company omitted or concealed its knowledge about the products’ defective qualities,” the class action lawsuit states.
Garrard says if had he been aware of the defects in the Restore products, he would not have purchased them or would have paid less money.
Also, Garrard maintains that he and other consumers have been damaged because they paid for products that do not have any value, and they paid more than what the product was worth
The proposed Class Members in this class action include: “All persons who purchased Restore Products in the United States between October 17, 2014 to the present (‘Nationwide Class.’)”
Did you purchase any Rust-Oleum Restore products? Let us know in the comments section below.
The plaintiff is represented by Trent B. Miracle, Eric Johnson, Mitchell M. Breit, and Jay Barnes of Simmons Hanly Conroy and Matthew L. Dameron and Amy R. Jackson of Williams Dirks Dameron LLC
The Rust-Oleum Restore Class Action Lawsuit is Allen Garrard v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00612, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2026 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
499 thoughts onRust-Oleum Class Action Lawsuit Says Restore Paint Peels Quickly