First Alert Smoke Alarm Class Action Dismissed

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 proposed class action lawsuit accusing First Alert Inc. of selling smoke alarms that were defective and that were misleadingly packaged was dismissed by a California federal judge.

In August, lead plaintiff Cynthia Bird filed her initial complaint alleging that First Alert failed to disclose the hazards of a type of smoke alarm the company sells. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that First Alert failed to adequately disclose that ionization smoke alarms do not alert occupants of smoldering-type fires as effectively as photoelectric smoke alarms. Bird further claimed that the company had known about the problem since the 1970s.

To back up her claims, Bird alleged that consumers purchase smoke alarms with the expectation that they will warn of fires and that consumers do not understand the difference between ionization alarms and photoelectric alarms. Further, she alleged that they do not understand the “undisclosed defect” of ionization-only smoke alarms. Additionally, Bird claimed that the states of Massachusetts and Vermont have enacted legislation requiring the use of photoelectric-only smoke detectors in new construction.

First Alert filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit arguing that the plaintiff had failed to establish her claims. First Alert asserted that all four of the plaintiff’s causes of action must be dismissed because the packaging on the ionization smoke alarms actually disclosed the information that plaintiff claims was not disclosed and because Bird said she will not buy a First Alert smoke alarm in the future. First Alert also contended that the plaintiff’s claims for damages must be dismissed because she already has a remedy under a different law already.

U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton agreed with First Alert and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, but indicated the plaintiff would be allowed to amend and refile her class action lawsuit by January 20. “Plaintiff will have a high hurdle to overcome to state a claim here, given that the [First Alert] packaging explains that the two types of smoke alarms respond differently to different types of fires, and recommends that consumers utilize both types,” said the judge in her order.

Judge Hamilton also found that the plaintiff failed to show a threat of imminent injury. “Here,” said the judge, “by plaintiff’s own admission, she has no intention of ever purchasing one of defendant’s ionization fire alarms in the future.”

“Thus,” Judge Hamilton continued, “there is no likelihood that she will be wronged again in the same way.”

Judge Hamilton disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that because her suit was a “public safety” class action lawsuit designed to prevent “ongoing” injury to consumers the requirement that she would be harmed in the future should not apply to her claims. Judge Hamilton pointed out that although courts “have held that a ‘public policy’ exception to the standing requirement,” that exemption “does not comport with Article III’s mandate” in this case.

The plaintiff’s claim for damages under California law was similarly dismissed.

Bird is represented by Michael F. Ram, Matt J. Malone and Susan S. Brown of Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski, F. Jerome Tapley and Hirlye R. Lutz III of Cory Watson Crowder & Degaris PC, and Kirk J. Wolden and Clifford L. Carter of Carter Wolden Curtis LLP.

The First Alert Smoke Alarm Class Action Lawsuit is Bird v. First Alert Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03585, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.