Fisher-Price class action claims infant swing linked to 5 deaths

Fisher-Price infant swing lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiff Destini Bigelow filed a class action lawsuit against Mattel Inc. and Fisher-Price Inc.
• Why: Mattel and Fisher-Price recently recalled an infant swing linked to five infant deaths, but Bigelow claims the terms of the recall are insufficient.
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court.

A new Fisher-Price class action lawsuit alleges the company’s Snuga Swings create an unsafe suffocation risk for infants and have been linked to five deaths.

Plaintiff Destini Bigelow says she purchased a Snuga Swing for her newborn because she believed the product was safe. Had she known it posed a dangerous suffocation risk, she says she would not have paid as much for the product.

The infant swing lawsuit claims Mattel Inc. and Fisher-Price Inc. have sold more than 2.1 million Snuga Swings for an average price of $160 since 2010 yet fail to adequately disclose the potential suffocation risk to consumers.

Fisher-Price class action: Defendants failed to disclose infant suffocation risk

Bigelow claims Fisher-Price knew of the risks since at least 2014, when a Snuga Swing owner made a report to the Consumer Products Safety Commission. Although the owner’s infant son was not injured while sitting in the swing, she says she was “very concerned that due to the way the head pillow is attached to the swing that a baby could get trapped/folded, get their face in it, have their breathing restricted and die.”

Another Snuga Swing owner made a similar report five years later after her infant son’s head got stuck under the head pillow, according to the complaint.

On Oct. 10, Fisher-Price recalled all Snuga Swings sold since 2010 over the risk of suffocation. The recall notice stated five infant deaths were reported when the swings were used for sleep.

“Despite the recall involving companies with billions of dollars in revenue each year … and an incredibly dangerous safety hazard (suffocation/death), the recall provides only $25 in relief to consumers, and that is only if consumers ‘remove and destroy the headrest and body support insert,” Bigelow alleges.

She argues this recall does not go far enough to protect infants or provide an adequate remedy for consumers who purchased the product.

The Fisher-Price class action lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract, the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty and fitness, negligent misrepresentation/omission, fraudulent misrepresentation/omission, and violations of New York and Michigan law.

Do you own a recalled Fisher-Price infant swing? Tell us what you think of the class action lawsuit in the comments.

Bigelow is represented by Terrence M. Connors and Andrew M. Debbins of Connors LLP and Alan M. Feldman, Zachary Arbitman and George Donnelly of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP.

The Fisher-Price infant swing class action lawsuit is Destini Bigelow v. Mattel Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00992, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Hatch Baby class action alleges sound machine adapter can cause electric shock
• Recall announced for baby powder sold in 12 states, on Amazon
• Abbott class action claims company falsely advertises toddler drinks as healthy
• 9th Circuit will not reevaluate Sprout nutrition label class action