Bell & Howell Must Face Pest Repeller False Advertising Class Action

Consumers will be able to move forward with their false advertising class action lawsuit over Bell & Howell’s allegedly ineffective pest repeller, after a judge rejected the company’s move to dismiss the case.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge William Pauley III determined that consumers had effectively thrown into question the efficacy of Bell & Howell’s ultrasonic pest repeller.

According to Judge Pauley, his decision was made after the consumers presented a picture of a mouse resting on top of a repeller that was reportedly on.

Commenting on Bell & Howell’s move to dismiss the pest repeller class action lawsuit, the photo “leaves this court wondering how BHH can argue that there is no disputed issue of material fact as to efficacy,” because mice can “apparently relax comfortably under a repeller and even appear to be so drawn in by its siren song that one would scale a wall just to snooze on it.”

The company expressed displeasure at Judge Pauley’s decision, saying that “it’s unfortunate that the photo, taken by [the consumers’] paid experts in a staged and unverifiable setting, was included in the order.”

Bell & Howell reportedly continues to defend the efficacy of the ultrasonic pet repellers, and says that multiple scientists and laboratory tests confirm that the product works as advertised.

The ultrasonic pest repeller class action lawsuit was originally filed by plaintiffs Sandra Bueno and Joanne Hart, who called the Bell & Howell product “ineffective and worthless,” despite the company’s claims that the product is capable of repelling insects and rodents using ultrasonic signals.

According to the two consumers, the company knew that the product did not work and sold it anyway. They say that the company intentionally misled consumers with its advertisements.

Hart and Bueno say that multiple studies conducted before Bell & Howell’s device went on the market showed that ultrasonic pest control devices do not successfully repeal mice or insects.

They argue that the Federal Trade Commission has cracked down on companies that continue to market the products despite research suggesting that they do not work.

Bell & Howell attempted to have the pest repellers class action lawsuit dismissed by saying that the consumers failed to sufficiently argue that the company broke its warranty by selling the ultrasonic pest repellers.

According to the company, the product’s advertisements included a disclaimer that the product’s signal could be blocked by walls, furniture, and carpeting. The company argued that based on this disclaimer, they have not broken warranty with their consumers if the product was found to not work.

Judge Pauley was not persuaded by this argument, arguing that though the company said the consumers should not be able to hold the product to an “undefined ‘real world’ standard,” and saying that “at bottom, [the consumers] contend not that there is a ‘real world’ standard of effectiveness, but that BHH sells a product that cannot work in any place it would be used, rendering it completely ineffective.”

Bueno and Hart are represented by Scott A. Bursor, Joshua A. Arisohn and Yitzchak Kopel of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The Bell & Howell Ultrasonic Pest Repeller Class Action Lawsuit is Joanne Hart, et al. v. BHH LLC, et al., Case No. 15-cv-4804, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.