Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—S.D.N.Y.: Homeowner’s claims against smart-lock system maker dismissed in system failure suit, (Oct 23, 2025)

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

The claims for violation of the New York and U.S. Constitution failed because the homeowner could not show that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.

In an action brought against the manufacturer of a keyless entry system by a woman who reported unauthorized entries and missing items from her apartment due to the system’s failures, a federal district court in New York granted the company’s motion to dismiss in full. Her implied warranty and strict liability claims could not survive because her complaint only demonstrated a performance failure rather than a defect, did not explain how the subject lock or smartphone application deviated from its intended design or other units, did not show that the maker had a duty to warn or explain how her proposed warning would have avoided the injury, and her suggested alternative designs would have eliminated the product’s core function (electronic system) altogether (Parkes v. Latch, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-75-JLR-KHP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2025)).

Background. A woman used a smartphone-enabled keyless entry system installed by her apartment building’s management and manufactured by Latch, Inc. After forgetting her phone inside her apartment one day, she requested assistance from her building’s concierge, who unlocked the door using a generic white keycard retrieved from an unlocked drawer. Concerned about the system’s security, she reviewed Latch’s access history for her apartment and discovered an unexplained gap of almost one month in the recorded entries. She also captured audio recordings of someone entering and leaving her unit in her absence, found new clothing articles, and noticed three missing SIM cards from her devices. These incidents caused her to suffer severe anxiety, depression, PTSD, and a fear of occupying enclosed spaces without feeling unsafe. She filed suit against Latch based on the system’s failure to reliably function and to maintain accurate access records. Her complaint alleged claims for strict liability, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the New York Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), and violation of New York’s Constitution. The manufacturer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Implied warranty. Under New York law, a seller warrants that goods are fit for their ordinary purpose. N.Y. U.C.C. §2-314(1). A breach of this warranty requires allegations that the product was defectively designed or manufactured and such defect was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Tears v. Boston Sci. Corp., 344 F. Supp. 3d 500, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The woman pleaded that the Latch system did not accurately log unit entries and led to a security breach resulting in theft, and that the product failed to perform its intended function of securing her living quarters. But the fact that the product stopped working for a period of time did not establish a product defect or that the product was unfit for its intended purpose, which was fatal to her claim. Id.

Manufacturing defect. The consumer sought to assert strict liability under all three available theories. First, a manufacturing defect exists when a specific unit deviates from the intended design or other identical units defective due to some mishap in the manufacturing process, improper workmanship, or defective materials. Tears, 344 F. Supp. 3d at 510. But the complaint did not allege that her door’s lock or the subject smartphone app/software were of a lesser or different quality than all other locks using Latch technology or all other Latch apps installed on other smartphones. Nor did it address Latch system’s manufacturing process, workmanship, and materials. The conclusory allegation that “adding cyber components renders locks dangerous” failed to show a production error or causal link (Krulewich v. Covidien LP, 498 F. Supp. 3d 566 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)), resulting in the claim’s dismissal.

Warning defect. To plead a warning defect, a claimant must show a duty to warn of foreseeable risks, the failure to do so, and proximate causation. SUEZ Water N.Y. Inc. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 578 F. Supp. 3d 511, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). The complaint contained no allegations about Latch’s knowledge of danger, causation, whether Latch provided any warning at all, how that warning was defective, and what warning should have been given. Her sole allegation was that the manufacturer failed to warn purchasers of foreseeable risks and created a false sense of security within them. Even if the court considered the proposed warning she untimely submitted on sur-reply, she did not explain how the omitted warning would have prevented harm or state that Latch had actual or constructive notice of that defect which gave rise to its duty to warn. Thus, this claim was also dismissed.

Design defect. A product’s design is defective if it poses a substantial likelihood of harm, a safer design was feasible, and the design caused injury. S.F. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 594 F. App’x 11 (2d Cir. 2014). The complaint alleged only that the Latch system stopped functioning for a time without addressing the three requisite claim elements. The woman’s suggestion that an ordinarily secure lock became dangerous when cyber components were added to it was rejected since a “product’s defect is related to its condition, not its intrinsic function.” Forni v. Ferguson, 648 N.Y.S.2d 73, 74 (App. Div. 1996). Her proposed alternatives of removing master keycards and owners having specialized keys would have eliminated the electronic system altogether and thus did not qualify as safer alternative designs (Kennedy v. Covidien LP, 2019 WL 1429979 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)), while the proposal for stronger app encryption was found to be vague and unlinked to injury. Accordingly, the design defect count could not survive.

Constitutional claims. Finally, the consumer alleged that Latch’s system failure and resulting intrusions violated Article I, §12 of the New York Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as she was “being trailed and harassed by government agents” and Latch was acting “in concert with state agents.” The court noted that §12 governs only governmental intrusions (SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 488 N.E.2d 1211 (N.Y. 1985)), while §1983 requires the alleged deprivation to be committed by a person acting under color of state law. Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015). But the complaint and sur-reply contained only speculation that unspecified government agents harassed and entered her home without authorization; unsupported by any facts indicating state participation or delegation. Such conjecture could not satisfy the state-action requirement (Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002)), and both constitutional claims were dismissed.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-75-JLR-KHP.

Judge: Rochon, J.

Attorneys: Tiffany Anne Parkes, pro se. Joseph Angelo Iemma (Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP) for Latch, Inc.

Companies: Latch, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory DesignManufacturingNews HouseholdProductsNews WarningsNews NewYorkNews