Duracell Class Action Lawsuit over Leaky Batteries 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.

Earlier this week, a California federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit that alleges certain Duracell Coppertop batteries were misrepresented as having a 10-year storage life.

Plaintiff Renee Punian filed the Duracell class action lawsuit against The Gillette Co. and Procter & Gamble Co., claiming that Duracell batteries with the “Duralock Power Preserve Technology” feature are falsely guaranteed to last 10 years while in storage.

This Duralock technology was reportedly implemented in several types of Duracell batteries, including Coppertop, Ultra Power and Ultra Advance. However, the class action lawsuit focuses only on AA and AAA-sized Coppertop batteries with Duralock.

Punian claims that the launch of Duralock was accompanied by “Duracell’s largest marketing campaign in history.” The Duracell class action lawsuit points to one commercial which allegedly ran stated: “Duracell Power Preserve that locks in power up to ten years in storage—guaranteed. Duracell with Duralock—Trusted everywhere.”

Contrary to the claims made on the labels and advertising of these Duracell batteries, Punian claims that the Duralock batteries “may leak when used or stored in a normal manner.” Further, the Duracell class action lawsuit states that the defendants failed to disclose that the batteries can leak when not in use and that the leakage can damage devices in which the Duralock batteries are stored.

Procter & Gamble and Gillette have vigorously fought the litigation and succeeded in getting the Duracell battery class action lawsuit dismissed in August 2015 because the court found that Punian failed to sufficiently allege that Procter & Gamble and Gillette were aware of the alleged defect. Punian was given an opportunity to file an amended Duracell class action lawsuit.

On March 22, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh dismissed Punian’s amended leaky battery class action lawsuit, finding that she had not alleged that there was an actionable misrepresentation with regard to the Duracell batteries. She also found that the defendants’ representations about the batteries’ storage life created an express warranty rather than a promise that the Duracell batteries were free of defects.

“A reasonable consumer would understand the Duralock guarantee as a promise to repair, replace or refund a battery that is in storage and fails within 10 years of purchase – not as a promise that Duralock batteries have no potential to leak,” Judge Koh wrote in her order dismissing the Duracell leaky battery class action lawsuit.

Judge Koh dismissed the Duracell class action lawsuit with prejudice, finding that it would be “futile” to give Punian another opportunity to state her case “because the statements identified by Plaintiff are either not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer or are nonactionable puffery.”

Punian is represented by Richard R. Barrett, Barrett J. Clisby and Charles F. Barrett of Neal & Harwell PLC; Charles J. LaDuca and Taylor Asen of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP;l Dewitt M. Lovelace of the Lovelace Law Firm; and Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates.

The Duracell Leaky Battery Class Action Lawsuit is Renee Punian v. The Gillette Co., Case No. 5:14-cv-05028, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.