What a $75 Slow Cooker Actually Cost

Picture a Tuesday evening in Everett, Massachusetts. Someone sets up their Crock-Pot before work, drops in vegetables and meat, locks the lid, and leaves for eight hours trusting that their dinner will be ready when they get home. That is the entire product promise. That is the reason slow cookers exist. You come home, you lift the lid, and there is a hot meal waiting.

What Robert Ventullo found when he lifted that lid was flakes of nonstick coating floating in his food. Not grit from a pan. Not a burnt smell. Actual pieces of the coating that was supposed to stay on the pot, now suspended in the meal he was about to eat. He had used the cooker exactly as instructed. He had not used metal utensils. He had not abused the product. He had simply cooked food in it. And the pot had shed itself into his dinner.

That moment is not just inconvenient. It is a violation. You have been cooking for your household — maybe for your kids, your partner, your aging parent — and the company that sold you that appliance never told you it was going to do this. They spent money designing the name “Easy-to-Clean” and printing it on the box. They built an entire marketing line around how effortless this cooker was going to make your life. And all along, according to expert testing, there was too much mica mineral in the Teflon mixture. Not a little. Enough to prevent the coating from bonding properly to the ceramic underneath. Enough that it was always going to fail. The complaint alleges it was defective the day it was manufactured.

When consumers went to Crock-Pot’s own website and asked, in plain language, why this was happening, the company did not answer. It did not warn. It did not say: stop using the product, here is what we know, here is what you should do. It offered a customer service phone number and a live chat window and told them to have a great day. One consumer, Kassie86, had purchased the product as a gift. She came back a year later with a peeling cooker and no receipt. The warranty required a receipt. She was told she was out of luck. The complaint documents this exchange as evidence of a warranty designed to suppress valid claims rather than honor them.

The Teflon coating is not inert once it leaves the pot surface. The lawsuit notes it is a PFAS chemical — polytetrafluoroethylene, PTFE — part of the same broad chemical family as the “forever chemicals” that contaminate drinking water, accumulate in human blood, and have been linked to serious health effects in ongoing research. Crock-Pot told consumers the coating was “PFOA-Free.” That is technically true of one specific PFAS compound. It says nothing about PTFE, which the product does contain, and which is now classified as a PFAS substance. The complaint argues that ordinary consumers read “PFOA-Free” to mean free from all toxic forever chemicals. They were wrong, and Crock-Pot knew they would be wrong, and the company let that misunderstanding sell units.

What was taken from these consumers is not just the $75 purchase price, though that money matters. What was taken is the straightforward, reasonable expectation that a product will do what the box says it will do. That when a company with over forty years in the market puts its name on something and calls it “Easy-to-Clean,” the coating will not end up in your soup. The people who bought this cooker were not asking for luxury. They were asking for a pot that works. They did not get it. And the company, if the complaint’s allegations hold, knew they would not.

What the Complaint Actually Says

The following are verbatim quotes taken directly from the court filing. These are not summaries. These are the words on the record.

Who Pays When Crock-Pot Doesn’t

Public Health

The defect turns every cooking session into a potential ingestion event for PFAS chemicals, a category of substances with growing evidence of serious health harm.

• Consumers who used these slow cookers for meals — including long, unattended cooking sessions of many hours — were exposed to flaking PTFE during normal use, with no warning from the manufacturer that this was happening or that they should stop.
• PTFE is classified as a PFAS substance. PFAS chemicals are called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the human body or the environment. The EPA and multiple scientific agencies have linked PFAS exposure to elevated risk of certain cancers, thyroid disease, immune system disruption, and reproductive harm.
• Crock-Pot’s “PFOA-Free” marketing directly exploited public concern about PFAS chemicals while simultaneously misleading consumers into believing no PFAS were present. PFOA is one PFAS compound; PTFE is a different one, and it is in the coating.
• Consumers with no knowledge of chemistry — meaning the vast majority of the people who bought these cookers — would have no way to understand that “PFOA-Free” does not mean “free of all PFAS.” The complaint argues Crock-Pot relied on this knowledge gap.
• Children, elderly individuals, and people with compromised immune systems who were fed food cooked in these slow cookers faced potential chemical exposure during the most vulnerable stages of life, with no knowledge that this was occurring.
• Consumer Kassie86 reported her cooker “smells like an electrical fire is about to happen” in addition to the flaking, suggesting possible thermal degradation of the coating at cooking temperatures — a risk that goes beyond flaking alone.

Economic Inequality

This is a product that was marketed to working-class households as a convenient, affordable way to prepare home-cooked meals. The people most harmed are those who had the least recourse.

• The average purchase price was approximately $75 — a meaningful expenditure for a household on a budget. The defect rendered the product a total loss, with no functional recovery available through the warranty.
• Consumer Kassie86 had received her slow cooker as a gift and had no receipt. The warranty explicitly requires proof of purchase to file a claim. Without a receipt, she was told she was “out of luck” — a barrier that disproportionately harms gift recipients and low-income consumers who may not maintain purchase documentation.
• The cost of litigating this individually would far exceed the $75 purchase price, which is precisely why the complaint argues a class action is the only practical mechanism for these consumers to recover anything. Crock-Pot benefited structurally from the fact that individual claims are too small to fight.
• The warranty’s one-year duration, combined with the defect’s latent nature — it may not manifest until after a year of use — means many consumers’ legal claims expired before they knew they had a defect. The complaint alleges this durational limit was itself unconscionable given Crock-Pot’s knowledge of the defect.
• Tene41, a reviewer, noted that her previous slow cooker lasted 20 years. The defective unit failed within three months. That is not a product that malfunctioned; that is a product that was never built to work. The economic harm is compounded for households that budgeted around a durable appliance and now face an immediate replacement cost.
• The complaint alleges Crock-Pot profited by selling the slow cookers to “many thousands of consumers.” That aggregate profit came from selling a known-defective product to people who had no way to discover the defect before they bought it.

What Silence Was Worth to Crock-Pot

The Companies Behind the Brand

Crock-Pot is not an independent entity. It operates under two parent corporations named as co-defendants in the federal lawsuit.

• Newell Brands, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. It is the umbrella corporate structure over the Crock-Pot brand and is named as a co-defendant because, according to the complaint, it was directly involved in the material selection, design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of the defective slow cookers.
• Sunbeam Products, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. It is the entity that issued the warranty on the slow cookers — the warranty document is signed by “Sunbeam” — and is named as a co-defendant on the same basis.
• The complaint alleges these two entities operated as agents and alter egos of each other in all aspects of producing and selling the Class Products. They are treated as a single corporate actor for the purposes of liability in this case.
• Newell Brands is a large consumer goods conglomerate whose brand portfolio extends well beyond Crock-Pot. It has the resources and engineering knowledge base to conduct rigorous quality testing. The complaint argues that its “over forty years” of slow cooker manufacturing experience means the defective coating formula should not have escaped detection.

You Have Options. Use Them.

The case is active. Here is what matters right now and what you can do.

The Defendants: Who Answers for This

• Newell Brands, Inc. — Parent corporation. Delaware incorporation, principal place of business in Atlanta, GA. Co-defendant in Case No. 1:26-cv-10027.
• Sunbeam Products, Inc. — Warranty-issuing entity. Delaware incorporation, principal place of business in Boca Raton, FL. Co-defendant in Case No. 1:26-cv-10027.
• The named corporate roles responsible for the defect, per the complaint, include those overseeing: material selection, material mixture, product design, manufacturing, marketing, quality assurance testing, and consumer relations for the Crock-Pot “Easy-to-Clean” product line.

Regulatory Watchlist

• CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission): The agency responsible for product safety recalls in the U.S. No recall has been issued for these slow cookers. The CPSC has an online complaint portal at SaferProducts.gov where consumers can file product safety reports. Volume of complaints can trigger agency investigations.
• FTC (Federal Trade Commission): Has jurisdiction over deceptive marketing claims in consumer products. The “PFOA-Free” labeling claim, which the complaint argues misled consumers about PFAS exposure, is exactly the type of greenwashing and misleading health claim the FTC has been moving against. Complaints can be filed at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
• EPA (Environmental Protection Agency): Currently regulates PFAS chemicals and has ongoing rulemaking around PTFE and other PFAS compounds. The agency’s PFAS Action Plan is directly relevant to the coating chemistry at issue in this case.
• Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office: The complaint specifically invokes Massachusetts Chapter 93A consumer protection law. The AG’s office accepts consumer complaints about deceptive business practices and has enforcement authority against violations.
• State Attorneys General (nationwide): The complaint lists 32 additional states with similar consumer protection statutes, covering consumers in states including New York, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and others. Each AG has authority to act on deceptive product claims within their state.

What You Can Do Now

• If you own either product — the 6-Quart One Touch Control or 7-Quart Cook & Carry “Easy-to-Clean” slow cookers — stop using them immediately if you observe any coating bubbling, peeling, chipping, or discoloration. Document the damage with photographs before disposing of anything.
• File a report at SaferProducts.gov (CPSC). Include photographs if you have them. State explicitly that nonstick coating migrated into food. These reports are public and create formal records that regulators use to evaluate whether a product recall is warranted.
• File a complaint with the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov, specifically citing the “PFOA-Free” labeling claim as a deceptive practice under the FTC Act, given that the product contains PTFE, a PFAS substance.
• Preserve your purchase documentation: receipt, order confirmation, credit card statement, any product packaging or warranty inserts. You will need this if the class action proceeds to a settlement or if you seek individual recourse.
• Connect with local tenant, consumer, and mutual aid organizations in your area. Consumer product defect cases like this one particularly harm people who lack the time, resources, or legal knowledge to navigate warranty claims alone. Community organizations that help people file small claims, navigate warranty processes, and understand their rights can make a material difference for working-class consumers locked out of formal legal remedies.
• Share this report with anyone who owns a Crock-Pot “Easy-to-Clean” product. The complaint notes the defect is latent — it is invisible before purchase, and many consumers may still be using a product they do not know is defective, potentially ingesting coating with every meal.
• Monitor the case docket: Case No. 1:26-cv-10027, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts. Court filings are publicly accessible through PACER (pacer.uscourts.gov) and often through free services like CourtListener.com. Class certification hearings, settlement negotiations, and trial dates will be filed on this docket.