Master Lock class action claims 140 line of padlocks are not pick-resistant

Master Lock class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiff Charles Miller filed a class action lawsuit against Master Lock Co. LLC and Fortune Brands Innovations.
• Why: Miller claims Master Lock falsely advertises its 140 line of padlocks as pick-resistant.
• Where: The Master Lock class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges Master Lock falsely advertises its 140 line of padlocks as pick-resistant when, in reality, they are “shockingly easy to pick.”

Plaintiff Charles Miller filed the class action complaint against Master Lock Co. LLC and Fortune Brands Innovations on May 15 in California federal court, alleging violations of state consumer laws.

According to the lawsuit, Master Lock sells its 140 line of padlocks with claims of being pick-resistant, but the products are easy to pick due to a critical design defect.

Miller claims the 140 line of padlocks, marketed as having a pick resistance level of 4 out of 10, can be easily unlocked with a simple $2 tool, contradicting the advertised claims of pick resistance.

The Master Lock class action lawsuit alleges that the company’s representations of pick resistance are false and misleading, as the padlocks offer no resistance to picking. The complaint claims that the padlocks are so easy to pick that they can be used as practice locks for those learning how to pick locks.

Master Lock 140 design flaw makes it easy to pick, lawsuit claims

Miller argues that the padlocks have a design flaw that allows them to be picked with a comb pick, a tool that can lift the pins in the lock above the shear line, allowing the lock to be opened without a key.

The Master Lock class action lawsuit alleges that this design flaw makes the padlocks vulnerable to picking despite being marketed as pick-resistant.

Miller claims that Master Lock’s misrepresentations about the padlocks’ pick resistance were part of the basis of the bargain, as consumers, including himself, relied on the advertised pick resistance when purchasing the products.

He argues that he would not have purchased the padlocks, or would not have paid the same price, if he had known they were not pick-resistant as advertised.

The class action lawsuit accuses Master Lock of violating California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Act and False Advertising Law.

Miller demands a jury trial and requests damages, restitution and injunctive relief to prevent Master Lock from continuing to market its padlocks as pick-resistant.

In other alleged false claims, a consumer is suing Kidde and Amazon for failing to disclose that Kidde’s ionization-only home smoke detectors are “fundamentally incapable of detecting smoldering fires.”

What do you think of the allegations made in this Master Lock class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Luke W. Sironski-White and Joshua B. Glatt of Bursor & Fisher P.A.

The Master Lock class action lawsuit is Miller v. Master Lock Company LLC, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-03081, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Meta social media addiction lawsuits cleared for August bellwether trial
• Power Plate Meals recalls frozen meatloaf due to allergen mislabeling
• Merrick Bank class action alleges unlawful debt collection despite attorney representation
• Washington Post class action alleges customer data used to set subscription prices