Riddell Helmet Class Action Lawsuit Ends with Mutual Dismissal

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.

Parties to a consolidated Riddell helmets false advertising class action lawsuit have mutually agreed to a final dismissal of the action.

The parties submitted their stipulated dismissal to the court last Thursday. The dismissal should put an end to a consolidated class action lawsuit claiming that certain Riddell helmets and those made by other manufacturers were falsely advertised as being more effective at preventing concussions.

Plaintiffs have agreed to a dismissal with prejudice, foreclosing their opportunity to refile the action on the same claims. All parties will bear their own court costs.

Originally filed in December 2013, this Riddell helmet false advertising lawsuit ultimately became a consolidation of claims from five individual plaintiffs and one youth sports organization against seven defendant companies such as Riddell Inc. and Easton-Bell Sports Inc. that manufacture or market sports helmets.

The plaintiffs accused the defendant sports companies of using false or misleading safety claims in their advertising of their helmets. One such representation allegedly claimed that Riddell Revolution helmets reduced the risk of concussions by 31 percent.

Plaintiffs countered that according to applicable studies, there is no helmet that reduces concussion risk better than any other helmet. They claimed that advertising for the Riddell helmet was based on flawed studies from the Cleveland Clinic and the University of Wisconsin.

Several claims in this Riddell helmet false advertising class action lawsuit were dismissed in January 2015. U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle said the plaintiffs’ allegations of false advertising lacked the specificity required to state a legal claim.

According to the judge, the plaintiffs neglected to specify exactly which representations in the defendants’ marketing materials they were putting at issue. The plaintiffs also didn’t specify when and how they observed the allegedly false representations.

The judge said that to show the defendants’ representations of increased concussion protection were false, the plaintiffs should have articulated what other helmets the defendants were comparing the Riddell helmet to.

“[I]t is significant whether plaintiffs claim that defendants exaggerated the concussion reduction ability of their helmets as compared to those currently on the market (and if so, which ones) or vintage leather football helmets,” the judge wrote.

Judge Simandle also said the plaintiffs should have specified whether the marketing claims were false as to all of the defendants’ helmets or just as to their youth helmets.

The judge also dismissed with prejudice the claims brought by an Illinois school district, which he said does not have standing to sue under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Plaintiffs came back with an amended complaint that added more details. The new complaint survived the defendants’ motion for dismissal in August 2015. Judge Simandle tossed a few claims from the new complaint but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on their fraud-based claims.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC and Dennis G. Pantazis of Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb LLC.

The Riddell Helmet False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is In re: Riddell Concussion Reduction Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-07585, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.