“Training equipment manufacturers must follow certain basic rules and procedures. When such a manufacturer sells a training product, it has a duty to ensure that the product functions properly and safely for its advertised use and is free from defects. Upon discovering a defect, a manufacturer must explicitly disclose the defect and either correct the defect or cease selling the product. When a manufacturer provides a warranty, it must stand by that warranty.”

💡 This establishes the fundamental duties Tzumi allegedly violated by continuing to sell defective dumbbells.

“Specifically, the Class Dumbbells’ Weight plates can dislodge from the dumbbell handle during use, posing an impact hazard to consumers.”

💡 This describes exactly what went wrong with the dumbbells and why they were dangerous.

“To date, there have been more than 60 reports of weight plates dislodging during use, which have been linked to at least seven injuries, including bruises, contusions and abrasions.”

💡 This proves the defect caused actual harm to multiple consumers, not just theoretical risk.

“Defendant’s Recall, which includes a free fix-and-repair clause requiring Defendant to repair and replace the faulty parts, does not offer any reasonably foreseeable guarantee that the Dumbbell Defect will go away permanently. Rather, the Recall mentions installing a new dumbbell handle and storage tray, but mentions no testing or assurances that such repairs will solve the issue fully.”

💡 This shows Tzumi’s recall may not actually fix the problem or compensate consumers for their losses.

“Assuming that the Recall was effective and offered a true fix, which it does not, Plaintiff is still burdened with an adjustable dumbbell that has been devalued by Defendant’s actions, because the value of an adjustable dumbbell with a known history of a dangerous Defect is worth much less than a dumbbell with a safe design.”

💡 Even a successful repair cannot restore the financial loss consumers suffered from owning recalled products.

“Defendant knew that the Class Dumbbells suffered from inherently defective components that were defectively designed and/or manufactured and were not suitable for their intended use. Defendant designed, engineered, and produced the Class Dumbbells; therefore, it created its own Dumbbell Defect and knew of that Defect.”

💡 This alleges Tzumi was not surprised by the defect but created and knew about it from the start.

“Defendant concealed from and failed to disclose to Plaintiff and Class Members the defective nature of the Class Dumbbells.”

💡 Tzumi allegedly hid the defect rather than warning consumers, prioritizing sales over safety.

“The fact that Defendant’s Class Dumbbells contained the Dumbbell Defect is a material fact, because a weight securing mechanism is one of the most critical aspects of an adjustable Dumbbell’s safety.”

💡 The defect affected the most essential safety feature, not a minor cosmetic issue.

“Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased the Class Dumbbells had they known of the Dumbbell Defect. Plaintiff and the Class did not know of such Dumbbell Defect; in purchasing Class Dumbbells, they relied upon Defendant’s false presentation of safety.”

💡 Consumers made purchasing decisions based on false information about product safety.

“Plaintiff did not know of and could not have discovered the Dumbbell Defect unless Plaintiff were to disassemble the Class Dumbbell and inspect the components throughout the Class Dumbbells. This possibility exists outside of reality, because—even if such a possibility would occur to an ordinary consumer—it is highly improbable that any Class Dumbbell dealer would allow for such intensive inspection.”

💡 The defect was impossible for consumers to detect before purchase, giving Tzumi an information advantage.

“Defendant was under a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to disclose the defective nature of the Class Dumbbells because: Defendant was in a superior position to know the true state of facts about the Dumbbell Defect contained in the Class Dumbbells; The omitted facts were material because they directly impact the safety of the Class Dumbbells; Defendant knew the omitted facts regarding the defect were not known to or reasonably discoverable by Plaintiff and Class Members; Defendant actively concealed the defective nature of the Class Dumbbells from Plaintiff and Class Members.”

💡 This establishes multiple reasons why Tzumi had a legal obligation to warn consumers.

“Defendant concealed, or failed to disclose, the true nature of the design and/or manufacturing defects contained in the Class Dumbbells, in order to induce Plaintiff and Class Members to act thereon.”

💡 The concealment was intentional to drive sales, not an innocent oversight.

“There were alternative, safer Dumbbell designs available that did not pose similar injury risks, meaning Defendant could have implemented a safer design but failed to do so.”

💡 Tzumi chose not to use known safer designs, showing the defect was avoidable.

“Defendant’s acts were and are materially misleading because Defendant in fact sold the Dumbbells into commerce which were defective and posed a risk of dislodging heavy weights that could fall on users, causing injury. Plaintiff and the Class have been injured because of Defendant’s deceptive or unfair acts, because they purchased Defendant’s Products at a premium price on the basis of the fact that those Products were fit for ordinary use when they were not.”

💡 This explains how Tzumi violated state consumer protection laws through deceptive practices.

“Because this benefit was obtained unlawfully—namely, by selling and accepting compensation for the Class Dumbbells without providing safe components in the Class Dumbbells—it would be unjust and inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof.”

💡 Tzumi profited from selling defective products and should not be allowed to keep that money.