Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
A putative Duracell class action lawsuit that alleges manufacturers Procter & Gamble misled customers into purchasing batteries based on a no-leak guarantee has been dismissed by a Massachusetts federal judge.
U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV stated that plaintiffs Lauren Carlson and Jamal Yusuf did not do enough to support their claims that Duracell batteries contain a leak defect. Judge Saylor further claimed that no reasonable consumer would take Duracell’s “guarantee for 10 years in storage” as a promise of perfection.
In the motion to dismiss the Duracell leaky battery class action lawsuit, Judge Saylor states that all manufactured products are susceptible to failing because they are designed and manufactured by human beings, and human beings make mistakes. According to Saylor, a “guarantee” is simply a promise that the manufacturer will replace the product or refund the purchase price if the item does not work as expected.
The Duracell battery class action lawsuit did not contain allegations that the product purchased by the plaintiffs actually leaked nor did it allege that P&G or The Gillette Company failed to make good on their guarantee by replacing the batteries. For these reasons, Judge Saylor decided to dismiss the Duracell class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs Carlson and Yusuf of Massachusetts filed the Duracell leaky battery class action lawsuit in November 2014. According to the battery users, they had both seen the 10-year Duralock guarantee on the package label prior to purchasing and believed that the product would not leak for the full decade.
The Duracell class action lawsuit alleged that Procter & Gamble were aware that their batteries could leak under normal use but concealed the information in order to increase sales. The plaintiffs claim that by omitting the information, the manufacturers misled customers into buying batteries that could leak and ruin electronic devices. Judge Saylor says it isn’t clear whether or not the leak guarantee is specifically related to storing the batteries.
Carlson and Yusuf allege that more than 30 people complained on Duracell’s website about batteries failing, but Judge Saylor stated that none of them were from Massachusetts. Absent of facts, Judge Saylor said it is impossible to tell how widespread of an issue this is.
Furthermore, Judge Saylor states the Duracell class action lawsuit did not have sufficient facts that support the plaintiffs’ claims that knowledge of an alleged leakage problem would have affected whether or not a reasonable consumer would have purchased the batteries.
According to the judge, “a reasonable consumer would not have any basis on which to determine that Duracell’s ‘premium price’ was unjustified as compared to that of its competitors. Thus, if he or she was otherwise inclined to purchase Duracell batteries, he or she would not be ‘influenced … not to enter into the transaction’ by the bare allegations contained within the complaint.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Taylor Asen and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP and Erica C. Mirabella of Mirabella Law LLC.
The Duracell Leaky Battery Class Action Lawsuit is Carlson, et al. v. The Gillette Company, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-14201, in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts.
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 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
25 thoughts onDuracell Leaky Battery Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
Same issues… just dumped 3 expensive electronic test and measurement devices, 2 flashlights, and several other gadgets, all ruined by leaking of Duracell batteries while in storage for 1 year. All of these batteries were new within past couple of years – I too understood that ‘shelf life 10+ years’ on the Duracell packs sold by Costco means they are NOT GOING TO LEAK. Utter BS, Lies, court system clearly bought and paid for!
Installed a new emergency locator transmitter in an aircraft in May 2021. It takes three batteries — one for the transmitter itself (a $200 OEM battery) that must be changed every two years by FAA regs. The others are small CR2 lithium batteries for the remote test module and remote audio warning module. These are off the shelf Duracell batteries.
Came to fly the aircraft and the remote test module was flashing. Since the batteries were only 8 months old and since the OEM states that the off the shelf batteries should last 10 years, I did not check the batteries at first. Ended up cancelling the flight
(Actually, could have flown ubder the regs because the main unit pasted all tests, but I will not sign off anything when there is a problem I dont understand)
OEM states, in writing, that the batteries should last 10 years in service. Our practice is to change these two cheap batteries at the same time we are required to change the $200 OEM battery.. Therefore, we had not seen premature failures previously, but really?? Eight months??
Reported to OEM, reported to my company ( already decided to stop using Duracells at all locations worldwide, but even better…reported to FAA!
The only way to fight a big bureaucracy is with an even bigger bureaucracy—especially one with the power to regulate.
Opened the audio module and found a badly corroded Duracell battery the destroyed the audio alert module. The batteries used by date was MAR 2030.
I have lost 6 devices do to the Duracell leaks. I can’t believe what the judge said. Of coarse I believe the batteries should not leak for at least ten years. Now I know why Duracell just blew me off when I called to report it. I think they need a new judge.
Dismissed because all humans make errors? I would like to have a. nickel for every expensive Mag Flashlight, remote control, or electronic device lost due to Duracell battery leaks and corrosion. Every single one of my family, friends, and associates has complained of the exact same problem., so it is not just a handful of people (No one in Massachusetts? came forward?). One has to wonder how much money Duracell may have parted company with to obtain such a wacky ruling?
I didn’t hear about this suit either, but I think the judge was very remiss in dismissing the law suit. These batteries are a huge problem. It is not a question about a small defect or human error. These batteries seem to leak on schedule. I now keep these batteries outside of any device until I use it, which defeats the convenience of the device and is a big hassle. You just can’t leave these batteries in walky-talkies, flashlights (hi-tech flashlights can easily cost $50), etc. This suit should have proceeded, with compensation and a mandate that Duracell (and other manufacturers) perform real world tests and put a probability curve on their packaging indicating the probability the battery will leak by such and such a date, or a notice and web page with statistics (which I’m sure vary by storage conditions). Interestingly, the cheap carbon-based batteries that sometimes are included with a product seem far less prone to leak in my experience.
I have over a dozen battery operated electronic devices that were rendered useless because of Duracell batteries that leaked. I couldn’t afford to replace all the devices every time I change batteries. I was forced to switch to a different brand. Energizers are much better. Never had an Energizer leak.
It’s extremely disappointing to see that everyone is suffering from this abusive business practice. I also lost so many electronic devices due to the leakage. I’m in California and it’s been like this for years. I tried most to all batteries and most of them leaked. Except for the ones that come with the devices when you purchase. Duracell, Energizer, Kirkland are the most popular. They all leak badly. The ones from 99 cent store, Panasonic brand do not leak. This needs to be rectified. They need to pay for the damages they’ve caused to consumers. They need to pay for the thousands and thousands of rubbage they are creating to feel the landfills. You can’t even donate these ruined devices to Salvation Army because they’re ruined. They call themselves Green and all that BS about how they save the environment. It’s all scam to make money for their pockets. Another class-action lawsuit needs to be pushed to tell them enough is enough.
Wow, I guess I am several years late to the party but this issue still persists. About a year ago we bought a Samsung Series 7 TV. It came with the standard el-cheapo AAA’s for the remote. They died about 6 months in. No problem. Went out and bought a 25ish pack of Duracell Copper tops with the “10 year guarantee” (I legitimately was impressed with this claim and that’s why I bought them). Put them in and were good to go. Three months later the remote didn’t work, taking it apart there was a CATASTROPHIC failure of one of the batteries. Enough leakage that the circuit board on the remote fried. I figured just a bad battery. Okay, so I bought another remote ($25) and put a couple new batteries (Duracell, again). Today, my NEW remote isn’t working. Opening it up, BOTH of the Duracell batteries have leaked quite a bit. Luckily, this time I was able to clean it and get the remote working but this is ridiculous….failure in THREE MONTHS?? Guess I’m going to have to pony up and get lithium AAAs or something to prevent this in the future.
I’ve had both a large, night watchman type, flashlight, which was screwed up by 2 year old Duracell D-batteries, that had burst and leaked, as well as an expensive, heavy duty, LED flashlight, with a magnetic base, that was just discovered , in early November 2019, to have become fully non-operational (even after a thorough cleaning with a steel wire brush) due to the leaking of 2 of its 4 Duracell size AAA batteries, which have the date of Dec 2025 imprinted on them.
Gee, those Triple A Duracell “Copper-Top” alkalines FELL 6 Years & 1 month SHORT of making it the the end of their CLAIMED SAFE 10 Years of storage! Though admittedly, those batteries weren’t just stored, but had power demands made of them, for a total of no more than about 8 or 10 times, when the LED flashlight containing them was used to assist in the quick hook up of various audio and video devices which were added to our home theater system.
Plus, in checking, yesterday, the various remote controls for our TVs, cable boxes, DVD recorders, Blu-ray players, stereo receivers, home theater receiver, etc, revealed that 1 of 2 AAA Duracells in a remote control, which carried the date of Dec 2025 had already started leaking. So that caused me, this morning, to complete the replacing of all of the Duracell AAA and AA “Copper-Top” alkaline batteries, that had previously powered 28 devices in our home, and having Panasonic brand batteries now handling the tasks.
Yup, the famed “Copper Top” batteries will NEVER be used in this house again!
I purchased the AA and the AAA Coppertop batteries throughout the years and started to purchase Energizer. I initiallly contacted Duracell’s customer service to complain that the AA batteries leaked and caused corrosion in the compartment of a new digital camera. The camera and batteries were both purchased in the year that they leaked, so these were new batteries that leaked within a six month period. I cleaned out the battery compartment and replaced the four batteries, to find that the camera no longer worked.
After calling Duracell, I requested that Duracell pay to repair or replace the camera. The representative refused and said that I would have had to send them the camera with the batteries still inside. Who would do this?? No one, because you wouldn’t know if the camera was compromised. They sent me a coupon to buy more Duracell batteries, but why would I want to buy more?
At the same time, I had purchased a new 16 or 18 package and the batteries leaked inside the package before it was ever opened. Just pulled out my last remaining Duracell batteries, but the two remaining batteries leaked.
Several flashlights, a remote controller, and two FRS radios all WRECKED by Duracell batteries. Duracell was very generous: they gave me a certificate for 20 more batteries. No thanks. I have switched to Energizer, and so far none have leaked. Death to Duracell!!!
If Energizer can make non-leaking batteries, why can’t Duracell? They must have chosen to make their batteries leaky.
You may be woefully disappointed. I have had far more Energizer cells leak and destroy expensive devices than Duracells.
I am not sure what brand to try next.
They are made in CHINA! DON’T know about energizer.
Duracell batteries have ruined many items. They used to be the best battery if their type about ten or more years ago. Since they’ve leaked in every device I left them in. Yes under normal use. Just discovered the cable remote some one put Duracell batteries in is now corroded as the two AA leaked. Appalling junk. I will never buy anything related to Duracell. Ever!