Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, COMPLAINTS—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—N.D. Ill.: Grill brush maker faces lawsuit over detaching metal bristles and deficient recall program, (Mar 12, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and fraud by omission and intentional misrepresentations.

A California resident has brought a putative class action against a grill brush manufacturer, alleging that the manufacturer sold roughly 3.2 million defective grill brushes nationwide while failing to disclose that the product’s metal bristles could detach and cause serious ingestion injuries. The complaint claims that the company fraudulently represented the product as safe and intentionally concealed the defect at the time of sale despite knowledge of the defect and receipt of consumer complaints and injuries. Its recall program failed to offer full refunds and instead provided a replacement brush that could not be used on hot grills. The action seeks certification of a nationwide class and California subclass, liability declarations, injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees (Challis v. Weber-Stephen Products LLC, No. 1:26-cv-2612 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2026)).

Background. In 2023, a California resident purchased a Weber-branded metal bristle grill brush from a hardware store to clean grease and debris from cooking grates. The product was manufactured by Weber-Stephen Products LLC and sold nationwide at major retailers including Lowe’s, Home Depot, Ace Hardware, Target, and through Amazon. Between 2011 and 2026, Weber sold roughly 3.2 million units but issued a nationwide recall in February 2026, warning consumers that small metal wire bristles may detach from the brush, stick to food or grill surfaces, and create an ingestion hazard capable of causing serious internal injuries requiring medical treatment or surgery. The notice instructed consumers to stop using the grill brushes immediately but refused to provide full refunds, instead offering replacement nylon-bristle brushes to users that could only be used on cold grills rather than hot grills like the recalled model. After experiencing a manifestation of the defect, the man brought a putative class action lawsuit against the manufacturer.

Complaint allegations. The man alleges that he bought the product after reviewing its packaging, labeling, specifications, and features; none of which warned about the defect. Instead, they falsely misrepresented that the product was suitable for use on hot grills and did not warn that its bristles could detach, stick to the grill or food, and pose an “an ingestion hazard.” These omissions and misrepresentations allegedly amounted to an unreasonable safety hazard, the materiality of which was demonstrated by the existence of the recall. The CPSC and Weber received several complaints about consumers finding metal bristles in their food and even receiving medical treatment for the same, but the manufacturer continued to sell the products till 2026 despite knowledge of the defect and incidents. The complaint states that putative class members have no adequate remedy at law since the recall only offers a replacement rather than a cash refund or other form of compensation.

Class allegations. The consumer seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who purchased the grill brushes and a subclass of California purchasers. He submits that (1) the classes contain thousands of members and joinder of all individuals would be impracticable; (2) common questions of law and fact predominate, including whether the manufacturer knew of the defect, whether the ingestion risk was a material safety hazard, whether Weber concealed the defect, and whether its conduct violated consumer protection laws; (3) his claims are typical of the class because he purchased a defective product and suffered economic injury after learning of the defect; (4) he would fairly and adequately represent class members and had retained a counsel highly experienced in consumer class litigation; and (5) a class action is the superior method for resolving the claims because individual lawsuits would be economically impractical given the relatively small purchase price of each grill brush.

Consumer protection. The complaint asserts that the manufacturer’s conduct violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200 et seq., which prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices. The consumer alleges that marketing the grill brushes as suitable cleaning tools while omitting disclosure of the ingestion hazard constituted fraudulent conduct likely to deceive reasonable consumers, unfairly exposed users to safety risks and injuries, and unlawfully withheld material information needed to make informed purchasing decisions. The complaint also asserts claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§1750 et seq., based on Weber’s repeated unfair and deceptive acts or practices in business, its knowledge of the defect, capacity to confuse consumers, and the lack of an adequate remedy at law.

Unjust enrichment and fraud. The man alleges that the manufacturer was unjustly enriched by retaining the revenues from the purchases, that such retention was unjust and inequitable since it omitted the products’ risks and dangers, and that the class members would not have purchased the grill brushes or would have paid less for them if the true facts were known, thus entitling to non-restitutionary disgorgement. The fraud claims focused on the fraudulent omissions and misrepresentations concerning the safety, reliability, and durability of the grill brushes and pointed out that the manufacturer must have known about their falsehood due to internal testing, warranty claim data, the 38 customer complaints received about the defect, replacement part data, field reports, and CPSC correspondence. The users justifiably relied on those representations and were detrimentally induced to buy the brushes.

Requested relief. The consumer seeks certification of the proposed classes, appointment of class representatives and counsel, declarations that the manufacturer’s conduct violates consumer protection laws, injunctive relief prohibiting further deceptive practices, restitution and disgorgement of profits derived from sales of the grill brushes, compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any additional relief the court deems appropriate.

The case is No. 1:26-cv-2612.

Attorneys: Brittany Scott (Smith Krivoshey, PC) for Ron Challis.

Companies: Weber-Stephen Products LLC

Cases: CourtDecisions ComplaintNewsStory HouseholdProductsNews IllinoisNews