Cosco Car Seat Class Action Says Height and Weight Limits are Overstated

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.

Dorel Juvenile Group Inc.’s Cosco convertible car seats fail to accommodate children up to the advertised height and weight limits, a class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Arriane Henryhand alleges the Cosco Apt 40 Convertible Car Seat, which was released in 2012, is labeled as being intended for rear-facing use for children between five and 40 pounds (or 19 to 40 inches in height), and for forward-facing use for children who are 22 to 40 pounds (or 34 to 43 inches in height).

“However, on information and belief, the Cosco Apt 40 Convertible Car Seat and its successor, the Cosco Apt 50 Convertible Car Seat, fail to accommodate children up to these advertised height and weight limits,” the Cosco class action lawsuit states.

According to the car seat class action lawsuit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommends children sit in a rear-facing car seat in the back seat of a vehicle for as long as possible, and then sit in a forward-facing booster seat or car seat until they are 12 years old.

Car seats are expensive and can cost upwards of $300, the Cosco class action lawsuit states. Therefore, the market for convertible car seats, which can be used as a front-facing car seat and a rear-facing car seat, has grown dramatically. These convertible car seats are reportedly designed to be able to accommodate children from birth until they are able to use a booster seat.

Henryhand claims that Dorel advertises the Cosco Apt Car Seats as convertible car seats and includes the height and weight accommodations for use in both rear-facing and front-facing positions.

“As a result of its height and weight limit claims, consumers purchase the Cosco Apt Car Seats under the false expectation that the car seats will be suitable for children until they can be moved to a booster seat, which is the primary purpose of utilizing convertible car seats,” Henryhand states in the Cosco car seat class action lawsuit. “Unfortunately, this is rarely, if ever, the case.”

According to the Cosco car seat class action lawsuit, the short harness straps and improperly placed harness strap slots fail to accommodate children up to the stated height and weight limits. As a result, consumers have to purchase a replacement forward-facing car seat far earlier than they expected.

Dorel should have been aware of the issue since at least 2012, because it received consumer complaints about the car seats’ failure to accommodate children according to its advertised height and weight limits, Henryhand states.

Henryhand claims that the Cosco car seat failed to accommodate her daughter well before she reached 43 inches or 40 pounds.

When her daughter was approximately 34 pounds and 36 inches tall, a physician determined that she developed a neck abscess that was likely caused by the improperly fitting harness straps on the Cosco car seat, the class action lawsuit alleges. Henryhand says she subsequently paid approximately $80 for a replacement car seat that could accommodate her daughter.

According to the Cosco class action lawsuit, Henryhand would either have not purchased the Cosco car seat or would have paid less for it if she had known that it would not accommodate children up to the stated height and weight limits.

By filing the car seat class action lawsuit, Henryhand seeks to represent a Class of consumers who purchased a Cosco Apt 40 or 50 Convertible Car Seat in the last four years.

Henryhand is represented by Lee A. Cirsch, Robert K. Friedl and Trisha K. Monesi of Capstone Law APC.

The Cosco Car Seat Class Action Lawsuit is Arriane Henryhand v. Dorel Juvenile Group Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00180-SJO-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.