Duracell Will Pay $2.2M To Settle Flashlights Class Action Lawsuit

Battery powerhouse Duracell will pay $2.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed against it over claims that the company defrauded customers who purchased some of its LED flashlights.

The case was filed in federal court in California in 2019 on behalf of customers who bought the flashlights equipped with Duracell batteries. The flashlights’ batteries drained in less than a month, even though they were turned off, and should have been covered by Duracell’s warranty, according to the class action lawsuit.

Duracell argued the warranty only covers unused batteries and once they were installed in the flashlights they were considered to be used and no longer covered.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which was submitted to the court for preliminary approval August 20, the plaintiffs will get between $6 and $8 per Duracell LED flashlight.

The flashlights at issue were Duracell models 250, 300 and 350 LED sold at Costco stores in 2014. Costco was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The flashlights were packaged with Duracell batteries and advertised as being useful in case of emergencies.

In their request for court approval of the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs said the amount Duracell is willing to pay and the risk posed by taking the case to trial makes the agreement fair and reasonable. The flashlights themselves still have some value and some of the 192,000 purchased were likely unaffected by the defect, according to the filing.

“Therefore, if the average price paid by consumers (for the packaged flashlights and batteries was) $16.19, less the value of the 12 nondefective AAA batteries, then an anticipated settlement payment of $6 to $8 is a significant recovery,” the plaintiffs’ settlement filing says.

The plaintiffs estimate that between 70% and 95% of the affected Class Members will be able to get their share of the settlement automatically because the flashlights and batteries were sold by Costco, a membership-based retailer. The store said its business records will enable it to contact the majority of the Class Members directly to arrange the settlement payments, according to the court filing.

The class action lawsuit was first brought in January 2019 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division by lead plaintiff Stanley Siddle. He accused Duracell of selling the flashlights even though it knew, or should have known, that the configuration caused batteries to be drained even when the switch was in the off position.

The flashlight/battery combination packs were advertised to provide buyers with as much as 90 minutes of high intensity light and up to seven hours of low intensity light when used together, the Duracell class action lawsuit claimed. The batteries themselves were said to have a “10-year storage lifespan.” Together they were marketed as being useful to have in case of emergencies or power outages, the complaint said.

However, the buyers say the batteries were found to be totally drained of their power in less than 30 days.

According to the Duracell class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs insisted that Duracell was made aware of the flashlights’ defect when numerous buyers complained about it, some through Duracell’s technical support hotline. Some of those callers were informed by Duracell agents that the models they had purchased were known to have defective power switches and they were actually offered replacements by the agents, the complaint states.

According to the class action lawsuit, further evidence Duracell knew the 250, 300 and 350 model LED flashlights were plagued with defective power switch wiring could be found in the fact that the company’s subsequent model 380 and 500 flashlights were sold in packaging that boasted there would be “no battery drain in off position.

The lawsuit went further to claim Duracell not only never issued a recall, it continued to profit from the sale of replacement batteries for the defective flashlights.

In an effort to get the case against it dismissed, lawyers for Duracell argued in June 2019 that the 10-year storage lifespan it advertised pertained only to unused batteries. Once the buyers installed the batteries into the flashlights, they were no longer unused, even if the flashlights were never turned on.

Did you purchase a Duracell LED flashlight? Let us know in the comment section below.

Top Class Actions will post updates to this class action settlement as they become available. For the latest updates, keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter. You can also receive notifications when this article is updated by using your free Top Class Actions account and clicking the “Follow Article” button at the top of the post.

Siddle is represented by Timothy P. Rumberger of the Law Offices of Timothy Rumberger.

The Duracell LED Flashlight Class Action Lawsuit is Siddle, et al. v. The Duracell Co. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00568, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

Class Action Rebates | August 2020

Have You Experienced a Surgical Staple Injury?

Tide Class Action Lawsuit Says PurClean Laundry Detergent Isn’t So Pure

Does Regions Bank Do FHA Loans?