SharkNinja Class Action Says Lift-Away Vacuum is Defective

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 class action lawsuit filed in New Jersey against vacuum and kitchen supply provider, SharkNinja Operating LLC, alleges one vacuum model contains defects related to the power plug that can even lead to fire danger.

Lead plaintiff Mordechai Rosenthal alleges in his class action lawsuit that the Shark Navigator Lift-Away Bagless Vacuum has defects which causes the vacuum’s power plug to potentially fail, generating sparks and smoke, during normal use. The plaintiff further claims that SharkNinja knew of these problems, but did not disclose them to consumers.

According to the complaint, “[SharkNinja] failed to disclose material facts concerning the propensity of the power plug on the Vacuums to fail and generate sparks, smoke, and/or fire during the course of proper use, causing damage to the Vacuum as well as the user’s electrical outlet, wall, and other property.”

“Such unexpected failure of the Vacuum’s power supply not only damages the user’s personal property, but also endangers the health and safety of consumers and the public,” continued the plaintiff in his complaint.

According to the class action lawsuit, SharkNinja’s alleged concealment of the problems with the vacuum violates the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The plaintiff says that SharkNinja was aware of the alleged problems with the Shark Navigator, but failed to disclose those problems to consumers. “[T]here were significant customer complaints regarding the defective electrical functioning in the Vacuums, which Defendant was well aware of,” the complaint states.

Rosenthal claims that he purchased a Shark Navigator, model number NV351 26, in April of 2014 believing SharkNinja would provide “a reliable, effective, and safe vacuum to clean his home with.” The plaintiff says he paid $149.99 plus tax for the vacuum and it came with a five-year warranty.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff began experiencing repeated problems with the vacuum in December of the following year. The plaintiff alleges that the vacuum would turn off unexpectedly, then begin smoking from the power outlet. Rosenthal says that when he contacted customer service, the representative first told him the motor had overheated and did not indicate there were any problems with the electrical components of the vacuum.

However, Rosenthal claims that as he continued to have problems with the vacuum, Shark Ninja service representatives told him that he would have to pay for shipping costs to remedy the defective vacuum.

The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, along with other relief if warranted. Rosenthal seeks to represent a Class of consumers who purchased the Shark Navigator model vacuum in New Jersey.

The plaintiff is represented by Natalie Finkelman Bennett, James C. Shah, and Nathan C. Zipperian of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller and Shah, LLP.

The SharkNinja Smoking Vacuum Class Action Lawsuit is Rosenthal v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, Case No. 3:16-CV-01048-AET-LHG in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

UPDATE: On Sept. 22, 2016, SharkNinja won dismissal of a proposed consumer class action lawsuit alleging certain models of their vacuum cleaners are defective and the company violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.