Fisher-Price class action alleges Snuga infant swings pose suffocation risk

Fisher-Price class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiff Richard Spencer filed a class action lawsuit against Fisher-Price Inc. and its corporate parent Mattel Inc.
• Why: Spencer claims Fisher-Price and Mattel manufactured, marketed and sold a line of inclined infant swings that are dangerous and unsuitable for infant sleep.
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court.

Fisher-Price and its parent company Mattel manufactured, marketed and sold a line of inclined infant swings that are dangerous and unsuitable for infant sleep, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Richard Spencer’s class action lawsuit claims the Snuga Swings, which Fisher-Price has sold since 2010, are “dangerously defective” and pose a suffocation hazard to infants.

Spencer further argues Fisher-Price and Mattel have known about the risks associated with the swings since they introduced them to the consumer marketplace, yet continued to market them as safe for infant sleep.

“Now, following multiple infant deaths and public outcry regarding the hazards associated with use of the Swings, Defendants concede through their deficient October 2024 Recall … that the Swing ‘should never be used for sleep,’” the Fisher-Price class action says.

Spencer wants to represent a nationwide class and California subclass of consumers who purchased a Snuga Swing.

Fisher-Price Snuga Swings linked to at least five infant deaths, class action says

The Fisher-Price class action alleges that despite the Snuga Swings having been linked to at least five infant deaths and injuries, Fisher-Price and Mattel have failed to adequately warn consumers about the dangers associated with the products.

Spencer argues the Snuga Swings are inherently unsafe due to their inclined design and non breathable materials, which can cause an infant’s head to slip into a dangerous position and obstruct airflow.

“The Defect significantly increases the risk that the infant’s head will slip into a dangerous position, tilt to constrict the windpipe, and/or cause the infant’s face to become pressed against the padded fabric in the sleeper and block airflow, which the infant may be unable to correct,” the Fisher-Price class action says.

Spencer claims Fisher-Price and Mattel are guilty of breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, fraud and violations of California state consumer protection laws.

The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and punitive damages for himself and all class members.

A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against Fisher-Price and Mattel last year over claims the Snuga Swing created a suffocation risk for infants. 

Have you ever purchased a Snuga Swing? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Terrence M. Connors and Andrew M. Debbins of Connors LLP, Alan M. Feldman, Zachary Arbitman and George Donnelly of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP, and Rachel Soffin and Kelsey Gatlin Davies of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC.

The Fisher-Price class action lawsuit is Spencer, et al. v. Fisher-Price Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00151, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• LG class action claims electric ranges pose fire hazard
• Volkswagen issues recall for several models due to rearview camera defect
• Toyota class action alleges 2024 Corolla has defective brakes
• Babyganics recall announced due to ‘potential impurity’