TL;DR:
TTI Consumer Power Tools sold approx. 64,000 of their RIDGID 18-volt framing nail guns that can fire a nail when only the trigger is pulled. The safety system can fail and send a nail flying even when the nose of the tool is not pressed against wood, which creates a clear laceration hazard.
One buyer cut his hand during normal use and then faced an “inadequate” recall that forced him to ship the tool back, cover his own packing costs, lose access to his equipment, and receive no refund.
A recent class action lawsuit says the product is unsafe, the recall shifts the burden onto consumers, and the company keeps millions in revenue from a defective tool. Keep reading for how this single tool tells a bigger story about corporate ethics, corporate accountability, and neoliberal capitalism’s shield for dangerous products.
A Nail Gun That Fires on Its Own
The complaint describes a power tool that turns into a blade in a worker’s hand.
TTI Consumer Power Tools manufactured and sold about 64,000 units of an 18-volt RIDGID framing nail gun with a dual-action safety system that can fail. The nailer can discharge a nail when only the trigger is pulled. The nose of the tool is supposed to be pressed against a work surface before a shot can fire. The filing explains that the tool can fire without that contact, which exposes users to laceration hazards.
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of these tools on July 31, 2025. The recall covers two models: the RIDGID 18-Volt Brushless 21-Degree Framing Nailer and the 30-Degree Framing Nailer.
The units were sold nationwide and in Canada through Home Depot stores, Direct Tools Factory Outlet locations, and online channels from July 2021 through May 2025 for $330 to $390 each.
The legal complaint calls the product “worthless and dangerous” and argues that every buyer suffered a loss because they paid full price for a tool that fails at the most basic promise of corporate social responsibility: a consumer product that does not injure users under normal conditions.
Timeline of Corporate Misconduct and Harm
| Date / Period | Event | Impact on Consumers |
|---|---|---|
| July 2021 – May 2025 | RIDGID 18V brushless framing nailers sold in the U.S. and Canada through major outlets | Thousands of buyers purchase a tool which contains a safety defect. |
| During product use | Plaintiff (victim) Preston Wood uses the 21-degree nailer during normal work and suffers a hand laceration from misfire | Injury occurs while tool is used as intended, according to the complaint. |
| July 31, 2025 | Federal consumer safety regulators announce a recall for about 64,000 units | Official confirmation that the defect creates a laceration hazard. |
| After recall announcement | Company offers repair via software update, requires consumers to mail tools in, declines refunds | Consumers absorb packaging, time, downtime, and replacement costs. |
| November 5, 2025 | Class action complaint filed in federal court | Consumers seek damages and equitable relief for alleged unsafe design and inadequate recall. |
The Corporate Misconduct and Unsafe Products
The central allegation is simple and serious. The safety mechanism on the framing nailer is defective. The tool can fire a nail with only a trigger pull. The nose piece (the part that should touch the work surface) should also need to be pressed down before any nail can fire. The complaint states that this safety sequence fails and allows unintentional discharge.
The complaint stresses that other manufacturers sell framing nailers that do not misfire in this way. The filing says feasible safer designs and materials were available at the time TTI designed and built these nailers.
The lawsuit claims:
- The nailers are unsafe under normal use.
- The defect existed at the time of sale, which makes the tools unfit for ordinary use.
- The company sold and advertised these nailers without warning buyers about the defect.
- The company held back information that would have changed consumer decisions.
The named plaintiff (the person who filed the lawsuit), Preston Wood, bought a RIDGID 18-volt Brushless 21-Degree Framing Nailer, used it in normal conditions, experienced a misfire, and suffered a laceration to his hand. He contacted the company and did not receive an adequate remedy.
The complaint frames this as corporate greed and corporate ethics failure: consumers pay hundreds of dollars for a premium tool and receive a product that can turn a routine trigger pull into an injury.
A Recall That Protects Reputation More Than People
The recall should be a moment of corporate accountability. The filing describes a recall that keeps revenue in corporate hands and pushes the practical burden onto customers.
The recall terms described in the complaint include:
| Recall Feature | What the Company Offers | Cost or Risk Shifted to Consumers |
|---|---|---|
| Remedy type | Software update to fix the defect | No replacement or new tool |
| Refund availability | No refunds offered for recalled nailers | Consumers keep financial loss on a dangerous product |
| Shipping | Prepaid shipping label | Consumers must obtain their own box and packing materials |
| Time without a tool | No estimated return time for the repaired nailer | Consumers lose access to a core tool for an unknown span |
| Interim work needs | No loaner or coverage for downtime | Consumers must delay work or buy another tool |
The complaint calls this remedy inadequate. It criticizes three main points. The repair may not fully solve the safety problem. The process shifts the time, effort, and packing costs to each buyer. The lack of a refund forces consumers to either wait without a tool or spend more money on another nailer.
The victim here states that he never agreed to pack and ship a dangerous product back to the manufacturer when he bought it. He expected a safe tool, not an unpaid logistics job!
This is a familiar pattern under neoliberal capitalism. Companies frame recalls as evidence of corporate social responsibility, while the actual costs and inconvenience land on workers and homeowners who rely on the product. The system treats safety fixes as a favor from the manufacturer, even when the defect originates inside the factory and design lab.
Regulatory Gaps and Neoliberal Capitalism’s Blind Spots
Federal safety regulators announced the recall on July 31, 2025, and described the defect as a laceration hazard. The notice explained that the nailer can discharge a nail when only the trigger is pulled and reminded users that the nose piece and trigger should work together as a safety system.
The filing notes that regulators did not report any injuries, while the plaintiff describes an actual hand laceration during normal use.
The gap between recall language and lived injury offers a small window into regulatory capture and deregulation. Oversight agencies often depend on company reports, industry lobbying, and limited budgets. Under neoliberal capitalism, policymakers favor lean regulation and voluntary compliance. This approach creates space for companies to control the narrative. The official notice can present the hazard in a mild tone, while individual consumers carry the scars and the financial strain.
The complaint emphasizes that TTI is a large and sophisticated corporation with long experience manufacturing consumer tools. It highlights that the company sits in a “unique and superior position” to know how its products are made and what level of risk they carry.
In a deregulated economy, that imbalance of knowledge becomes a structural weapon. Consumers do not have engineering labs or testing gear. The only realistic path to learn about hidden defects is through injuries, recalls, or lawsuits. The lawsuit points out that the only way a buyer could have discovered this defect before purchase would be to conduct their own testing, after they’ve already given the evil corporation money for the defectively dangerous nail gun.
When the rules treat this knowledge gap as normal, corporate misconduct and corporate pollution of the marketplace stay profitable.
Profit-Maximization at All Costs
The numbers in the complaint tell a clear story about wealth disparity and corporate greed.
- Units recalled: about 64,000
- Retail price: $330 to $390 per unit
Total sales for these recalled units fall in a range between roughly $21 million and almost $25 million. Consumers paid that money for tools described in the complaint as unsafe and unfit for ordinary use. The filing says buyers paid a “premium price” for a product that did not match its implied promises.
The lawsuit argues that TTI:
- Collected money from consumers across the country.
- Knew or should have known about a dangerous defect.
- Offered only a limited fix without refunds.
- Kept the revenue, even after a “massive recall.”
The complaint frames this as unjust enrichment. Money flowed from homeowners and workers to a tool manufacturer. The tool fails in a basic safety function. The company still holds the sales revenue and offers only a repair that consumes the customer’s time and effort.
This pattern reflects a hallmark of neoliberal capitalism: the system rewards companies that treat safety, corporate ethics, and product quality as variables inside a profit-maximization formula. When a defect surfaces, the company designs the cheapest acceptable fix, keeps as much revenue as possible, and externalizes the real cost (injuries, downtime, packing supplies, and lost trust) onto the public.
Economic Fallout and “Worthless” Tools
The complaint focuses on economic fallout at the household and small-business level. It argues that all buyers suffered loss because the product is “worthless and dangerous.”
The filing describes several forms of harm:
- Consumers paid for nailers that do not work safely.
- They paid a premium price based on the company’s branding and marketing.
- The product delivered less value than promised and deprived buyers of the “benefit of the bargain.”
- Buyers lost access to their tool during the recall process.
- Some users, like the named plaintiff, suffered physical injury.
This is a direct challenge to the idea that the market evenly matches price and quality. Under late-stage capitalism, large firms can use branding, shelf space at big-box stores, and trust in established names to command premium prices. When the product turns out to be unsafe, the market logic breaks down. The complaint shows how quickly economic risk shifts from corporate shareholders to individuals as soon as danger surfaces.
Public Health Risks and Jobsite Safety
The defect at the center of this case is not a minor annoyance. It is a public health and workplace safety issue.
The product can discharge a nail when only the trigger is pulled. The filing labels this a laceration hazard and describes an actual laceration to a buyer’s hand.
Framing nailers are common in both professional and do-it-yourself settings. A tool that fires unexpectedly turns every trigger pull into a potential emergency room visit. Under neoliberal capitalism, jobsites and homes increasingly rely on high-speed, high-powered tools while regulatory protections shrink. This creates a structural tension: greater productivity with greater physical risk, with individual users absorbing that risk in their bodies.
Corporate social responsibility in this context would mean design margins that favor safety. The complaint instead describes a defect that undercuts the basic safety architecture of the tool.
The Language of Legitimacy: How Law Softens Corporate Harm
The complaint uses accessible language like “laceration hazard,” “unsafe,” and “worthless and dangerous” to describe the product. At the same time, it must fit into legal frameworks that revolve around terms such as “merchantable,” “implied warranty,” and “unjust enrichment.”
This pattern exposes a broader dynamic in neoliberal capitalism. Courts and statutes often focus on whether goods are “fit for ordinary use” or whether a seller “retained a benefit” without fair payment. That language makes the issue sound abstract. Behind those phrases sit bleeding hands, stalled jobs, delayed repairs, and financial stress in working households.
Legal minimalism steps in here. Corporations work to satisfy the form of the law (recalling a product, offering a fix, printing a notice) while leaving the core burden with the public. A recall that offers no refund and requires consumers to manage packing and downtime fulfills a procedural step. The deeper question of corporate ethics and real accountability receives less attention.
Monetizing Harm and Turning Danger Into a Revenue Stream
The allegations in this complaint show how harm can become part of a revenue model.
- The company sells premium-priced nailers with a hidden defect.
- The defect creates a hazard that the complaint describes as a laceration risk.
- The recall solution keeps product revenue in corporate accounts and asks customers to give more time and resources.
Under late-stage capitalism, this pattern appears in many sectors. Firms extract profit from products that create risk or damage. When harm surfaces, they turn the fix into another process that relies on consumer effort and patience. Corporate pollution of the marketplace becomes just another line item.
The lawsuit alleges that TTI “knowingly and voluntarily” accepted these benefits and retained them under circumstances that the filing calls inequitable.
Corporate Accountability Fails the Public
The lawsuit frames this case as a failure of corporate accountability.
According to the legal complaint:
- The nailer’s safety mechanism was defective at the time of sale.
- The product was unfit for sale and unfit for ordinary use.
- Buyers had no fair way to discover the defect before purchase.
- The company did not disclose the defect and continues to hold the revenue from sales.
- The recall remedy leaves consumers with costs and risks.
The filing argues that this behavior deceived buyers, misled the public, and created unjust enrichment. It seeks damages, restitution, and equitable relief for a nationwide class of people who bought the two recalled models between July 2021 and May 2025.
In a political economy built on neoliberal capitalism, this outcome follows the usual script. The legal system can award money and label conduct as wrongful. The tools remain in circulation for years before any recall. Injuries happen one worker at a time. The corporation continues to operate and profit from other product lines.
This Is the System Working as Designed
The story of this nail gun shows how the system channels risk and reward.
- Design and production decisions stay inside a large, sophisticated corporation with superior knowledge.
- Consumers receive a finished tool and a promise of quality.
- A defect turns that tool into a blade that cuts into a worker’s hand.
- A recall arrives with no refunds and unpaid labor for the customer.
- The company keeps revenue that the complaint describes as unjustly gained.
Under neoliberal logic, this is not a malfunction of the system. It is a predictable outcome when law and policy prioritize profit, flexibility, and “market solutions” over public health, community safety, and genuine corporate ethics. Dangerous tools stay profitable as long as the cost of harm remains fragmented and individualized.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Tool and a Deeper Failure
This case centers on one simple fact: a framing nailer that can fire when it should stay locked. A buyer used that nailer in normal conditions and suffered a laceration. The company now faces claims that it sold a dangerous, unmerchantable product, offered an inadequate recall, and retained millions in revenue at the expense of ordinary people.
The legal complaint exposes a wider pattern. Corporate greed and weak oversight encourage companies to push safety margins and manage damage through recalls that favor balance sheets over human well-being. In the end, the public absorbs the injuries, the lost work time, the packing tape, and the quiet fear that the next trigger pull might be the one that goes wrong.
Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?
The allegations in this filing describe:
- A specific defect in the safety system of a power tool.
- A nationwide recall of about 64,000 units by federal safety regulators.
- A documented physical injury to a buyer’s hand during normal use.
- A recall remedy that offers repair only, no refunds, and pushes logistical burdens onto customers.
These elements all together point to a serious legal and moral grievance. The lawsuit raises concrete questions about corporate accountability, product safety, and the fairness of a recall that keeps profits intact while injured and at-risk consumers bear the fallout.
The product’s recall page can be found here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2025/TTI-Consumer-Power-Tools-Recalls-RIDGID-Framing-Nailers-Due-to-Laceration-Hazard
đź’ˇ 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.
NOTE:
This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:
- The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
- Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
- The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
- My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.
All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.
Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)
Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....
