What a Burned Face Actually Costs

Let’s be clear about what a pressure cooker does. It traps steam inside a sealed chamber at temperatures well above 212 degrees Fahrenheit. The entire point of the locking lid mechanism is to act as a barrier between that superheated environment and the human body standing inches away. That lid is not an optional feature. It is the only thing standing between a routine Tuesday dinner and a trip to the emergency burn unit.

SharkNinja told the people who bought its Ninja Foodi OP300 Series that the lid would not unlock until the unit was completely depressurized. They put that promise in the User’s Guide. They built their marketing around a reputation for quality and safety. People chose SharkNinja specifically because they believed they were buying a reliable machine from a company with a strong track record.

Then the lid opened anyway.

Think about what that moment looks like. You are in your kitchen. You cooked dinner for your family, following the instructions, using the product exactly as intended. You reach for the lid. It opens. And suddenly you are wearing the contents of a pressure cooker on your face, your hands, your chest. The CPSC confirmed this happened to real people 106 times before SharkNinja pulled the product. More than 50 of those people sustained second- or third-degree burns. That is not a mild scald. Second-degree burns destroy the outer and part of the underlying skin layer. Third-degree burns go deeper still, destroying nerves, requiring skin grafts, leaving permanent scarring.

The face is among the most psychologically devastating sites for a burn injury. It changes how you see yourself and how others see you in every interaction for the rest of your life. People who survive facial burns often navigate grief, depression, and social anxiety on top of months of painful wound care, physical therapy, and in many cases, repeated reconstructive surgeries. The financial costs of that journey are staggering. The human costs cannot be reduced to a dollar figure.

And all of it was preventable. The lawsuit states plainly that safer alternative designs were available to SharkNinja. The company had already built other pressure cooker models that did not carry this flaw. The engineering solution existed. SharkNinja chose not to apply it to the OP300 Series, and then sold those cookers to nearly two million American households without telling a single one of them that the lid’s safety claim was a lie.

Gust Biscovich, the named plaintiff, bought his OP300 through Amazon in 2020. He had no way to know about the defect. There was no warning label, no disclosure, no proactive outreach from SharkNinja. The only reason he found out at all was that Amazon sent him a recall notice in May 2025. Five years after he bought the product. SharkNinja never contacted him directly.

The people who already got burned had no such warning. They found out about the defect the hard way, in the worst possible moment, in the place they were supposed to be safest: their own homes.

“The lid can be opened during use, causing hot contents to escape, posing a risk of burn injuries to consumers.” That sentence is from a federal lawsuit. It is also the most important thing SharkNinja never put on the box.

The Company’s Own Words, Under Oath

The lawsuit is built on a paper trail. Here are the direct statements from the court filing and related government sources, with a breakdown of what each one proves.

“As a safety feature, the pressure lid will not unlock until the unit is completely depressurized.” — SharkNinja Ninja Foodi OP300 Series User’s Guide (Exhibit A, cited in complaint)

• This is SharkNinja’s own express written warranty. It is a specific, factual claim about a safety mechanism. The company put this promise in the hands of every buyer.
• The CPSC recall confirms the lid can in fact be opened during use. That makes this statement a direct, documented contradiction. Plaintiffs call it a breach of express warranty and the basis of fraudulent concealment.

“SharkNinja has received 106 reports of burn injuries, including more than 50 reports of second- or third-degree burns to the face or body, with 26 lawsuits filed.” — U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Recall Notice, May 1, 2025 (cited in complaint, paragraph 20)

• This figure comes from SharkNinja’s own reported injury data submitted to the CPSC. The company had this information before the recall was announced. The lawsuit argues the company knew of the defect and its consequences well before any public disclosure.
• The 26 lawsuits filed prior to this class action indicate SharkNinja had been defending injury claims in court, which is direct evidence the company had legal knowledge of the harm before choosing to continue selling the product.

“Defendant knew that the Recalled Pressure Cookers suffered from an inherent defect, were defectively designed and/or manufactured, and were not suitable for their intended use. Defendant designed, engineered, and produced the Recalled Pressure Cookers; therefore, it created the Defect and knew of that Defect.” — Class Action Complaint, paragraph 118

• This is the fraud allegation in its clearest form. Plaintiffs assert that knowledge of the defect is inherent to the act of designing and producing the product. SharkNinja cannot claim ignorance of a flaw it engineered.
• The complaint connects SharkNinja’s full chain of control: inception, design, manufacture, importation, packaging, marketing, distribution, and sale. There is no third party to deflect to.

“Defendant’s acts were done maliciously, oppressively, deliberately, with intent to defraud, and to enrich Defendant in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s and the Class’ rights and well-being. Defendant’s conduct warrants an assessment of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter such conduct in the future.” — Class Action Complaint, paragraph 130

• Punitive damages are reserved for conduct courts find egregious and deliberate. Plaintiffs are not just asking for their money back. They are asking a jury to punish SharkNinja in a way that makes future misconduct economically irrational.
• The phrase “reckless disregard” carries specific legal weight. It means SharkNinja was aware of the risk and chose to proceed anyway. That is a higher bar than ordinary negligence, and plaintiffs are arguing the evidence clears it.

“Defendant did not exercise due care in the production of the Recalled Pressure Cookers. Many other pressure cookers do not have this Defect. Defendant has produced other pressure cookers without similar defects.” — Class Action Complaint, paragraphs 95 and 97

• This is the most damaging engineering admission in the complaint. SharkNinja’s own product line contains pressure cookers that work safely. The defect is not an industry-wide limitation. It is specific to the OP300 Series.
• Under negligence law, demonstrating that a safer design was achievable, and that the defendant had already achieved it elsewhere, is powerful evidence that the choice not to use that design was a failure of due care.

SharkNinja did not fail to figure out how to make a safe pressure cooker. It had already done that. It just chose not to apply that knowledge to the OP300 Series.

Who Gets Hurt When a Kitchen Appliance Becomes a Weapon

Public Health

The CPSC data tells a story of cumulative, preventable harm. Every entry in that 106-report count is a real person who was hurt in their own kitchen, doing something ordinary.

• More than 50 of the 106 reported injuries involved second- or third-degree burns. These are not minor scalds. Second and third-degree burns require hospital treatment, often including debridement, wound dressings, and in the most serious cases, skin grafts. Recovery takes months and leaves permanent scarring.
• Burns to the face, which the CPSC specifically calls out alongside body burns, carry a distinctive set of medical complications: corneal damage if hot liquid or steam reaches the eyes, airway injuries if steam is inhaled, and long-term psychological harm from facial disfigurement.
• Twenty-six separate lawsuits were filed before this class action, suggesting a significant number of injuries were serious enough to generate independent legal claims. These are not paper injuries. They are injuries people hired lawyers over.
• The product was sold from January 2019 through March 2025, a window of over six years during which any household that used the Ninja Foodi OP300 Series was operating a potential burn hazard at countertop height, typically in the presence of family members including children.
• The recall covers 1.9 million units. That is 1.9 million kitchens in the United States where this hazard exists or existed. The CPSC’s 106 reported injuries almost certainly undercount the actual number, as many burn victims do not report injuries to federal agencies.

1.9 million units in 1.9 million kitchens. The CPSC got 106 reports. The real number of people hurt is almost certainly higher. Burn injuries do not come with a federal reporting form.

Economic Inequality

The economic damage in this case is layered. It hits working-class consumers on multiple fronts simultaneously.

• The Ninja Foodi OP300 Series sold for approximately $200. For a low- or moderate-income family, $200 represents a significant discretionary purchase, often made as an investment in home cooking to save money long-term. That investment is now worthless. The recalled unit cannot be safely used.
• Wealthier consumers can absorb a $200 loss and replace the appliance immediately. Households operating on tight budgets may have no functional pressure cooker during the recall process, disrupting meal planning and the cost savings that come with batch cooking at home.
• The recall was announced without SharkNinja directly contacting purchasers. Consumers who bought through Amazon received an Amazon notification. Consumers who bought at Walmart, Costco, or Target retail locations, paid in cash, or did not retain digital purchase records may have received no notification at all. These gaps fall disproportionately on older, lower-income, and less digitally connected consumers.
• Medical costs for burn treatment are substantial even with insurance. Second and third-degree burns can generate emergency room bills, specialist visits, wound care supplies, and follow-up appointments totaling thousands of dollars. For uninsured or underinsured consumers, a serious burn from this product could be financially catastrophic on top of physically devastating.
• SharkNinja collected approximately $200 from each of nearly 1.9 million purchasers. The lawsuit’s unjust enrichment claim argues that revenue, collected for a product that was secretly defective, must be returned. The total exposure is substantial; the matter in controversy is alleged to exceed $5,000,000 under federal class action jurisdiction standards.
• The class action structure is specifically necessary here because individual consumers have little economic incentive to pursue a $200 loss in court. SharkNinja’s financial model relied on that asymmetry. Individual claims are not worth the legal cost. A class action changes the math.

The Math Behind the Misconduct

What You Can Do About It

A federal class action is now active in the Northern District of California. Here is what that means for you and everyone else who bought one of these cookers, and what you can do right now.

Regulatory Watchlist

• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): The CPSC issued the recall notice and is the primary federal agency tracking injuries. If you were hurt by this product and have not yet reported it, file a report at SaferProducts.gov. Your report adds to the official injury count and strengthens the case for accountability.
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The fraudulent concealment allegations in this lawsuit touch on consumer protection law. The FTC has jurisdiction over deceptive trade practices. Consumers can file complaints at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
• U.S. District Court, Northern District of California: Case 5:25-cv-03993 is the active docket. Public court filings are accessible through PACER. Following this case is the best way to track how SharkNinja responds to the allegations.

If You Own a Recalled Unit

• Stop using the pressure cooker immediately. The CPSC recall covers the OP300, OP301, OP301A, OP302, OP302BRN, OP302HCN, OP302HAQ, OP302HW, OP302HB, OP305, OP305CO, and OP350CO. If your model number appears on that list, the unit should not be operated. Check the CPSC recall page directly at cpsc.gov for the latest remedy options from SharkNinja.
• Document everything. Keep your purchase receipt, the product itself, and any communications from SharkNinja or the retailer. If you were injured, document your medical treatment, costs, and any correspondence with the company. This documentation matters if you become part of a class or pursue an individual claim.
• Contact class counsel. The attorneys on this case are Yanni Law, APC (John C. Bohren, (619) 433-2803, Yanni@bohrenlaw.com) and Poulin, Willey, Anastopoulo, LLC (Eric M. Poulin and Paul J. Doolittle, (803) 222-2222, eric.poulin@poulinwilley.com, paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com). If you purchased a recalled unit, you may be a class member. If you were injured, you may have additional individual claims beyond the class.
• Report to SaferProducts.gov. Every injury report that reaches the CPSC strengthens the public record and may affect how regulators respond to SharkNinja going forward. It also helps identify whether the true injury count is higher than the 106 currently documented.

Grassroots and Mutual Aid

• Share the CPSC recall information in community spaces. Neighborhood Facebook groups, NextDoor, community boards at laundromats and grocery stores, and local mutual aid networks are places where people who bought these cookers in cash at big box stores may never have seen a recall notice. Print the CPSC recall page and post it. The people least likely to have received a digital notification are the most vulnerable.
• Support local burn survivor networks and advocacy organizations. The American Burn Association (ameriburn.org) connects survivors with resources, support groups, and advocacy. If you or someone you know was injured, these networks exist specifically to provide support that a company recall process does not.
• Demand retailer accountability. Walmart, Costco, Sam’s Club, Target, and Amazon all sold this product. Contact their customer service departments and ask what they are doing to proactively notify every customer who purchased the recalled units. Retailers have customer purchase data. Public pressure can make them use it.