Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Ryobi Technologies, Inc. · Class Action Lawsuit
Ryobi Sold Fire Prone Lawn Mowers Despite Knowing the Risks
Ryobi Technologies and TTI Outdoor Power Equipment allegedly sold over 217,000 defective mowers that could catch fire, concealing the known hazard from consumers for years while collecting profits.
CRITICAL SEVERITY
TL;DR
Ryobi Technologies and TTI Outdoor Power Equipment sold approximately 217,500 lawn mowers in the United States that contained a dangerous defect: a battery connector that could overheat and catch fire. Despite receiving 97 reports of overheating, five fires, and two burn injuries, the companies allegedly continued marketing the mowers as safe for years before finally issuing a recall in February 2025. Consumers who trusted these major brands now own worthless and dangerous products, while the companies profited from hundreds of thousands of sales.
This is what happens when profit margins matter more than consumer safety.
217,500
Defective mowers sold in the U.S.
97
Reports of overheating received by company
5
Fires reported from defective mowers
2
Burn injuries from overheating mowers
4 years
Period defective products were sold (2021-2025)
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
A fire hazard hiding in plain sight · 6 points
| 01 | Ryobi manufactured and sold 40-Volt Brushless mowers with a push-on connector inside the powerhead that overheats and creates a fire risk. The defect originated from the battery terminal area of the mower. | high |
| 02 | The companies received 97 reports of the mowers overheating during use, five reports of actual fires, and two reports of minor burn injuries. Despite this knowledge, they continued selling the products. | high |
| 03 | The defendants marketed and sold the defective mowers at Home Depot, Direct Tools Factory Outlet, and online from February 2021 through January 2025, a span of nearly four years. They represented the products as safe and effective during this entire period. | high |
| 04 | Other manufacturers produce mowers using formulations and production methods that do not cause fire risks, proving the defect was avoidable. Feasible alternative designs and materials were available to the defendants when they designed and manufactured these products. | medium |
| 05 | The defendants failed to warn consumers, retailers, or regulatory agencies about the fire risk even when they had the opportunity to do so. No reasonable consumer would have purchased the mowers had they known about the fire hazard. | high |
| 06 | The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall for the defective products on February 6, 2025, but only after years of sales and numerous incidents. The recall affects approximately 217,500 units in the United States and an additional 28,400 in Canada. | high |
Regulatory Failures
Where were the safeguards? · 4 points
| 01 | The defective mowers were sold for nearly four years before any regulatory action was taken. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recall only came in February 2025, after the products had been on the market since February 2021. | high |
| 02 | The companies brought these products to market and sold them to hundreds of thousands of consumers without adequate pre-market safety testing catching the defect. This demonstrates potential weaknesses in product safety oversight. | medium |
| 03 | The recall process requires consumers to cut their handle wire cable in two places, photograph the damage and serial number, and submit proof to the company. This burden falls entirely on consumers rather than requiring immediate action from the manufacturer. | medium |
| 04 | TTI requires proof of ownership such as serial numbers or purchase receipts to process the recall, leaving some legitimate consumers potentially without recourse if they no longer possess these documents. The system creates barriers to consumer remediation. | medium |
Profit Over People
The cost-benefit calculation · 6 points
| 01 | The defendants continued manufacturing, marketing, and selling products with a known defect capable of causing fire and injury, allegedly prioritizing revenue over customer safety. They sold the mowers to consumers across the United States knowing they were defective. | high |
| 02 | The defendants engaged in fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, misleading, and unlawful conduct by omitting information about the fire risk. They created express warranties through advertising and packaging that the products were safe while concealing the defect. | high |
| 03 | The companies were unjustly enriched by retaining revenues from sales of defective mowers. They received payment for products that were fundamentally unsafe and unfit for their intended purpose. | high |
| 04 | Safer design modifications existed that would have reduced or eliminated the fire risk, including improved thermal management systems, enhanced safety circuits, or better casing materials. The defendants failed to implement these alternatives to save costs. | high |
| 05 | The replacement mowers offered through the recall are tool-only, meaning they do not include batteries or chargers. This limits the financial impact on the company while requiring consumers to reuse components from their defective units. | medium |
| 06 | Many consumers reported long hold times when calling TTI and cumbersome back-and-forth communication even when using online contact forms. The difficult recall process minimizes the company’s costs by discouraging full participation. | medium |
Economic Fallout
Consumers left holding the bag · 5 points
| 01 | Consumers were deprived of the basis of their bargain because the defendants sold them products that could overheat and spontaneously ignite or catch fire. The dangerous fire risk renders the mowers unmerchantable and unfit for normal use. | high |
| 02 | All consumers who purchased the products have suffered losses. They paid for mowers they believed were safe but received defective, worthless, and dangerous products instead. | high |
| 03 | Hundreds of thousands of consumers now possess a product they can no longer safely use, effectively rendering their investment a total loss. The products are adulterated, defective, worthless, and unfit for use due to the fire risk. | high |
| 04 | Plaintiff Justin Lilly purchased his Ryobi RY401140US mower from Home Depot in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for normal household use. He experienced overheating and power loss during use but was unaware of the fire hazard until the recall. | medium |
| 05 | Consumers would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less had they known the true nature of the risks. The concealed defect artificially inflated the market value of these dangerous mowers. | high |
Public Health and Safety
The human cost · 5 points
| 01 | The mowers pose a significant risk of overheating and catching fire, exposing consumers to harmful materials and serious risk of injury or property damage. The defect creates exposure to fire, smoke, and the risk of severe burns. | high |
| 02 | Two people suffered minor burn injuries from the defective mowers. Five fires were reported, any of which could have resulted in serious property damage or more severe injuries. | high |
| 03 | Consumers face the risk of burns, smoke inhalation, and property damage when using the products. The fire hazard turns a routine household chore into a potentially traumatic and dangerous event. | high |
| 04 | The products were not fit for their intended use by humans as they expose consumers to a fire hazard. Ordinary consumers would not expect a lawn mower to catch fire under normal use. | high |
| 05 | Plaintiff and class members had no way of knowing about the product’s latent defect at the time of purchase. The fire risk was undiscoverable to consumers but existed when the products left the defendants’ control. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Who knew what and when · 6 points
| 01 | The defendants knew or should have known that the defective product posed a significant risk of overheating and catching fire but failed to warn consumers. They had superior knowledge about the defective nature of the products. | high |
| 02 | The defendants were on notice of the defects through consumer complaints and reports of overheating incidents yet failed to address these defects before continuing to sell the products. They received 97 reports of overheating before taking action. | high |
| 03 | The defendants had access to critical safety information regarding fire hazards associated with the products but failed to warn consumers, leaving them unaware of the dangers. They concealed material facts with intent to induce consumers into purchasing the products. | high |
| 04 | The defendants had access to industry knowledge, safety reports, and consumer complaints that should have alerted them to the defective nature of the products. Despite this information, they continued sales. | high |
| 05 | As the manufacturer, the defendants were in a superior position to know about the defective products and their dangerous propensity to overheat and catch fire. They bore responsibility for the defect that existed when products left their exclusive control. | medium |
| 06 | The defendants failed to properly design and test the product to ensure its safety before placing it into the stream of commerce. They negligently sold the product without proper warnings, quality assurance measures, or timely recalls despite known risks. | high |
The PR Machine
Marketing safety while concealing danger · 4 points
| 01 | The defendants made affirmative representations through advertising, packaging, labeling, and marketing materials that the products were safe, effective, and fit for their intended purpose. These warranties became part of the basis of the bargain with consumers. | high |
| 02 | The defendants reinforced their safety claims by advertising, displaying, and selling the products to consumers, making express representations of the products’ safety and fitness. If they were aware of overheating issues while making these representations, it constitutes a significant breach of trust. | high |
| 03 | The defendants represented through product labeling and marketing that the products were safe and effective for their intended use despite the known fire risk. These misrepresentations formed a key part of their sales strategy. | high |
| 04 | The recall initiated by TTI can be viewed as a response once the defect became undeniable, but the lawsuit implies this action came too late after significant harm and risk had already been disseminated to hundreds of thousands of consumers. | medium |
Wealth Disparity
Profits up, safety down · 4 points
| 01 | The defendants received revenues from sales of defective mowers at the expense of consumers who would not have purchased them had they been aware of the defect. The revenue generated from nearly a quarter-million mowers contributes to corporate earnings while consumers are left with dangerous items. | high |
| 02 | The defendants unfairly profited from selling defective mowers and should be required to disgorge those profits. Retention of revenues is inequitable because they failed to disclose known risks, misleading consumers and endangering their safety. | high |
| 03 | The damages suffered by individual class members is relatively small compared to the burden and expense of individual litigation. It would be virtually impossible for members of the class to obtain effective redress on an individual basis for wrongs committed against them. | medium |
| 04 | The lawsuit seeks punitive damages because the defendants acted with willful and malicious intent. Punitive damages are warranted to deter future misconduct and punish defendants for knowingly concealing critical safety information from consumers. | high |
Exploiting Delay
Years of sales before action · 4 points
| 01 | The products were sold from February 2021 through January 2025, nearly four years, before a recall was announced in early 2025. This represents a significant delay after the company received numerous incident reports. | high |
| 02 | The defendants knew or should have known about the defect yet continued to sell the product, maximizing sales of a dangerous product before regulatory or public pressure forced action. Every unit sold before recall was revenue booked. | high |
| 03 | The defendants failed to strengthen their warnings or provide adequate safety disclosures before selling the products. Instead, they actively concealed or ignored the need for stronger warnings, prioritizing sales over consumer safety. | high |
| 04 | The recall process itself has drawn criticism with consumers reporting long hold times and cumbersome communication requirements. The difficult process may discourage participation and limit the financial impact on the company. | medium |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals · 5 points
| 01 | This case represents more than a dispute over faulty lawnmowers. It highlights the profound human and societal costs when corporations allegedly prioritize profit over the safety and trust of their customers. | high |
| 02 | The complaint alleges a failure to protect consumers from a known fire hazard, turning a common household chore into a potential danger. It demonstrates the power imbalance between large corporations and individual consumers. | high |
| 03 | All consumers who purchased the worthless and dangerous products have suffered losses. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages and equitable remedies on behalf of the plaintiff and the putative class. | high |
| 04 | The class action offers a mechanism for redress where individual actions might fail due to the relatively small individual losses compared to litigation costs. It potentially levels the playing field between individual consumers and large corporations. | medium |
| 05 | If the products had been reformulated to be safe and avoid overheating and sudden ignition, consumers would choose to purchase them again in the future. The fundamental problem is not the product concept but the defective execution. | low |
Timeline of Events
February 2021
Ryobi begins selling defective 40V mowers at Home Depot, Direct Tools Factory Outlet, and online
2021-2025
TTI receives 97 reports of mowers overheating during use, including five fires and two minor burn injuries
January 2025
Sales of defective mowers continue through this month, nearly four years after initial sales began
February 6, 2025
Consumer Product Safety Commission issues recall for defective Ryobi mowers covering 217,500 U.S. units
February 21, 2025
Justin Lilly files class action lawsuit against Ryobi Technologies and TTI Outdoor Power Equipment in Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
The defect and fire hazard
allegations
“Unfortunately, the Products are defective because they can catch fire. The defect originates from the mower’s battery terminal, where a push-on connector inside the powerhead can overheat, posing a fire risk.”
💡 This identifies the specific defect that creates the fire hazard consumers were not warned about
QUOTE 2
Known incidents before recall
allegations
“TTI, a Hong Kong-based company with its American operations headquartered in Anderson, South Carolina, has received 97 reports of overheating, including five fires and two minor burn injuries.”
💡 The company knew about nearly 100 incidents including actual fires before taking action
QUOTE 3
Scale of the danger
allegations
“The recall involves approximately 217,500 units in the U.S. and 28,400 in Canada.”
💡 Nearly a quarter million defective fire-prone mowers were sold to American consumers
QUOTE 4
Years of sales despite defect
delay_tactics
“The Products are sold at sold at Home Depot, Direct Tools Factory Outlet, and online from February 2021 through January 2025.”
💡 The company sold these dangerous products for nearly four years before issuing a recall
QUOTE 5
Defect was avoidable
profit
“Other manufacturers formulate, produce, and sell non-defective Mowers with formulations and production methods that do not cause the Products to catch fire, which is evidence that the fire risk inherent with Defendants’ Products is demonstrably avoidable.”
💡 Safer alternatives existed, meaning the company chose not to implement them
QUOTE 6
Feasible alternatives existed
profit
“Feasible alternative formulations, designs, and materials are currently available and were available to Defendants at the time the Products were formulated, designed, and manufactured.”
💡 The defendants had access to safer designs when they made these defective mowers
QUOTE 7
Consumer deception
economic
“Plaintiff purchased the Product, while lacking the knowledge that Product could catch fire, thus causing serious harm to those who use such Products.”
💡 Consumers were kept in the dark about the fire risk when making their purchase decisions
QUOTE 8
Universal harm to purchasers
economic
“All consumers who purchased the worthless and dangerous Products have suffered losses.”
💡 Every single person who bought these mowers has been harmed financially and potentially physically
QUOTE 9
False safety representations
pr_machine
“The Product is defective because it can overheat and catch fire. Despite this known fire risk, Defendants represented that the Products were safe and effective for their intended use.”
💡 The company actively marketed the mowers as safe while knowing they could catch fire
QUOTE 10
Fraudulent conduct
accountability
“The Defendants engaged in fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, misleading, and/or unlawful conduct stemming from its omissions surrounding the risk of catching fire affecting the Products.”
💡 The lawsuit alleges the company’s behavior was not just negligent but fraudulent
QUOTE 11
No reasonable consumer would buy
economic
“Indeed, no reasonable consumer, including Plaintiff, would have purchased the Products had they known of the material omissions of material facts regarding the possibility of the Products overheating and catching on fire.”
💡 The concealment was material – consumers would have made different choices if informed
QUOTE 12
Products rendered worthless
economic
“Plaintiff seeks to recover damages because the Products are adulterated, defective, worthless, and unfit for human use due to the risk of catching fire.”
💡 The fire hazard makes the products completely unusable and without value
QUOTE 13
Unjust enrichment from dangerous sales
wealth
“The benefit was obtained unlawfully by both Defendants by distributing a Product prone to catching fire. Retaining these profits without disclosing the defect or refunding consumers is unjust and inequitable.”
💡 The defendants profited from selling products they knew were dangerous
QUOTE 14
Company knew or should have known
accountability
“Defendants knew or should have known about the defect but failed to warn consumers, retailers, or regulators, and continued to sell the Product despite the defect.”
💡 The lawsuit alleges the company had knowledge of the danger but concealed it from everyone
QUOTE 15
Safer designs were ignored
profit
“Defendants could have implemented safer design modifications that would have reduced or eliminated the fire risk, such as improved thermal management systems, enhanced safety circuits, or better casing materials, but failed to do so.”
💡 Specific safer alternatives were available but not used, suggesting cost-cutting over safety
Frequently Asked Questions
Which Ryobi mower models are affected by this recall?
The recall includes Ryobi 40-Volt Brushless 21 inch Cordless Walk-Behind Mowers with model numbers RY401014BTLUS, RY401014US, RY401140US, RY401015BTLUS, RY401015US, RY401150US, RY401140US-Y, RY401150US-Y, RY401020, and RY401200. Only units with serial numbers between KC21032D010001 and KC21327N999999 are affected. You can find the model and serial numbers inside the green mower housing.
What exactly is wrong with these mowers?
The mowers have a defective push-on connector inside the powerhead at the battery terminal. This connector can overheat during normal use, creating a serious fire hazard. The company received 97 reports of overheating, five actual fires, and two burn injuries before issuing the recall.
How many of these dangerous mowers were sold?
Approximately 217,500 defective mowers were sold in the United States and an additional 28,400 in Canada. The mowers were available for purchase at Home Depot, Direct Tools Factory Outlet, and online from February 2021 through January 2025, a period of nearly four years.
Did the company know about the fire risk before the recall?
According to the lawsuit, the defendants knew or should have known about the defect but failed to warn consumers, retailers, or regulators and continued selling the products despite the known fire risk. The company received 97 reports of overheating, including five fires and two burn injuries, before finally issuing a recall.
What do I have to do to participate in the recall?
To process the recall, you must cut the handle wire cable in two places, take photos of the cuts and the serial number, and submit them to TTI. Once verified, the company promises to ship a replacement mower. However, many users have reported long hold times when calling TTI and cumbersome back-and-forth communication even when using online contact forms.
Will I get a complete replacement mower?
No. The replacement mowers are tool-only, meaning they will not include batteries or chargers. The defendants apparently believe the battery and charger from your defective mower will work with the replacement. This limits the company’s financial responsibility while requiring you to reuse components from the dangerous unit.
What if I don’t have my receipt anymore?
TTI requires proof of ownership, such as the serial number or purchase receipt, to process the recall. This requirement could leave some consumers who legitimately purchased the mowers without recourse if they no longer possess these documents, creating barriers to getting the defective product replaced.
Why is there a class action lawsuit if there is already a recall?
The lawsuit argues that the recall alone does not adequately compensate consumers for their losses. Consumers paid for safe, functional mowers but received defective, dangerous products. The lawsuit seeks to hold the companies accountable for selling products they knew were dangerous, recover damages for economic losses, and obtain punitive damages to punish the willful misconduct and deter future similar behavior.
What damages are the plaintiffs seeking?
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the purchase price of worthless defective mowers, statutory and punitive damages to punish the defendants for their fraudulent and deceptive conduct, restitution and disgorgement of profits the companies made from selling dangerous products, injunctive relief to prevent future similar conduct, and attorneys fees and costs.
What can I do if I bought one of these mowers?
Stop using the mower immediately due to the fire risk. Contact TTI to participate in the recall process, though be prepared for potential delays and administrative hurdles. Consider whether you want to participate in the class action lawsuit by contacting the attorneys listed in the complaint. Document everything, including your purchase receipt, serial number, photos of the mower, and any communications with the company.
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
