Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Shenzhen Charmast Technology Co., Ltd. · Class Action Lawsuit
Charmast Sold Power Banks That Could Ignite, Lawsuit Alleges
Shenzhen Charmast Technology Co., Ltd. allegedly sold defective portable chargers with lithium-ion batteries prone to overheating and catching fire, concealing the hazard from consumers for years while profiting from nationwide sales.
CRITICAL SEVERITY
TL;DR
A class action lawsuit alleges that Shenzhen Charmast Technology sold portable power banks (model W1056) from December 2018 through September 2024 that contained defective lithium-ion batteries capable of overheating and igniting. The company allegedly knew or should have known about this fire and burn hazard but failed to warn consumers, instead marketing the products as safe. Consumers who purchased these power banks received dangerous, worthless products while the company profited from the sales.
This case shows how profit motives can override consumer safety when companies conceal product dangers.
$5M+
Minimum aggregate damages claimed by class
6 years
Product sold on Amazon (Dec 2018 – Sept 2024)
6 colors
Product variants sold (black, blue, green, mint, pink, white)
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What Charmast allegedly did · 8 points
| 01 | Charmast sold power banks model W1056 with lithium-ion batteries that could overheat and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. The products were sold exclusively on Amazon.com from December 2018 through September 2024 in six colors. | critical |
| 02 | The company represented the power banks as safe and effective through marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling, creating an express warranty about product safety. However, the company allegedly omitted key facts about the fire risk inherent to the defective battery. | high |
| 03 | The company failed to disclose the fire risk through product labels, instructions, packaging, advertising, or any other manner, which the lawsuit claims violated state and federal law. Consumers purchased the products believing them to be safe. | high |
| 04 | Feasible alternative formulations, designs, and materials were available to the defendant at the time of manufacture that would not have caused the fire hazard. This indicates the defect was demonstrably avoidable. | high |
| 05 | The company allegedly countenanced material omissions about safety to boost or maintain sales of the product and create a false assurance that continued use would not place consumers in danger. The defendant allegedly aimed to portray the product as safe while omitting key facts about potential harm. | high |
| 06 | The defendant was on notice of the breach and the adverse health effects caused by the fire risk through its review of consumer complaints and other reports. Despite this knowledge, the company allegedly continued to promote the products as safe. | high |
| 07 | Consumers would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less had they known about the fire hazard. The products were worthless and dangerous, depriving buyers of the benefit of their bargain. | high |
| 08 | The defect was undiscoverable by consumers at the time of purchase and throughout the class period. Plaintiff and class members had no way of knowing about the latent defect when they bought the power banks. | medium |
Regulatory Failures
How the system let consumers down · 4 points
| 01 | The defective power banks were sold for nearly six years (December 2018 through September 2024) before a recall was initiated. This extended timeframe allowed widespread consumer exposure to the fire hazard. | high |
| 02 | A Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recall was eventually issued for the Charmast Power Banks due to fire and burn hazards. However, this regulatory action came only after years of sales and after the products had reached countless consumers. | high |
| 03 | The defendant allegedly violated state and federal law by failing to notify consumers of the fire risk, yet the product remained available for purchase through a major e-commerce platform for over half a decade before enforcement action. | medium |
| 04 | The lawsuit notes that at the time of purchases, the defendant did not notify consumers of the fire risk in violation of law, suggesting existing regulations were not preventing the sale of these dangerous goods. | medium |
Profit Over People
How financial motives allegedly drove harmful decisions · 6 points
| 01 | The defendant allegedly engaged in fraudulent and deceptive conduct by devising and executing a scheme to deceptively convey that their products were safe. These actions were done to gain a commercial advantage over competitors and drive consumers away from purchasing competitor products. | high |
| 02 | The company allegedly received benefits in the form of revenues from purchases of the defective products to the detriment of consumers. The defendant voluntarily accepted and retained these benefits obtained by selling products unfit for safe use. | high |
| 03 | The defendant allegedly omitted material information regarding product quality and safety to boost or maintain sales, creating a false assurance that prolonged loyalty to the brand would not place consumers in danger. Omitted information was material because it significantly determines product value at purchase. | high |
| 04 | The retention of revenues from defective product sales is unjust and inequitable because the defendant’s labeling was misleading to consumers. This caused injuries to consumers who would not have purchased the products had they known the true facts. | high |
| 05 | The company allegedly knew the products would expose consumers to health risks but knowingly sold them anyway. This means the defendant knew the products were not fit for their intended use as safe portable chargers. | critical |
| 06 | The lawsuit explicitly states that the defendant was unjustly enriched in retaining revenues derived from purchases by consumers. The benefit was obtained unlawfully by selling and accepting compensation for products unfit for human use. | high |
Economic Fallout
Financial harm to consumers · 5 points
| 01 | Consumers purchased the power banks under the presumption they were safe, but instead received worthless and dangerous products. This represents a direct financial loss for everyone who bought the defective items. | high |
| 02 | The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. This indicates a substantial number of affected consumers suffered financial harm. | high |
| 03 | Consumers were deprived of the benefit of their bargain because they paid for safe, functional power banks but received defective products containing dangerous batteries. They did not receive the goods they bargained for. | high |
| 04 | As a result of the defect in the products, consumers have suffered damages including the cost of the defective product, loss of use of the product, and other related damage. These losses are in amounts to be determined at trial. | medium |
| 05 | Consumers who purchased the products suffered financial damage and injury and are entitled to compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, restitution, and all other forms of equitable monetary relief. | medium |
Public Health and Safety
Real dangers posed to consumers · 6 points
| 01 | The lithium-ion batteries in the power banks can overheat and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. This is a serious safety threat that could lead to personal injury, property damage, and significant distress. | critical |
| 02 | Products intended for everyday personal and household use like portable chargers were expected to be safe. The alleged defect means potentially thousands of individuals were unknowingly carrying or using devices that could spontaneously combust. | critical |
| 03 | The products exposed consumers to a fire hazard risk. The design and formulation rendered them not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for their intended purpose because the fire risk outweighed any benefits. | high |
| 04 | The products were unreasonably dangerous to consumers. The defendant sold defective products that were unreasonably dangerous when they left the hands of the company and reached consumers without substantial alteration. | high |
| 05 | Because the product poses an unreasonable risk of substantial bodily injury, the defendant was under a continuous duty to disclose that the products contained a defect known to cause harm to whoever uses it. | high |
| 06 | The products were defective when they left the exclusive control of the defendant. Consumers used the products in the ordinary way power banks were intended to be used, yet the defect created danger. | medium |
The PR Machine
Marketing safety while delivering danger · 6 points
| 01 | Through marketing and sale, the defendant represented that the products were safe and effective for their intended use as portable charger power banks. This created consumer trust in the brand. | high |
| 02 | The defendant’s advertising, labeling, marketing, and packaging created an express warranty that the products were safe to use by people of all ages and genders. This formed part of the contract between the company and consumers. | high |
| 03 | Nowhere on the product’s packaging did the defendant disclose that the products could present a risk of fire hazard to the user. This material omission stood in stark contrast to the safety messaging. | high |
| 04 | The defendant aimed to portray the products as safe for frequent and repeated use while omitting key facts concerning the potential harm from burning due to overheating batteries. This created a false assurance of safety. | high |
| 05 | The defendant’s advertising, merchandising, and promotional materials directed to consumers were deceptive regarding the risks posed by the products. The company made representations regarding product safety while omitting material information about actual dangers. | high |
| 06 | The defendant made false and misleading statements and omissions willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth. The company induced consumers to purchase the products by advertising them as safe despite the known defect. | high |
Corporate Accountability Failures
How the company avoided responsibility · 6 points
| 01 | The defendant, as the owner, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of the products, had a duty to disclose the risks because of exclusive and superior knowledge concerning the products. The company failed to discharge its duty to disclose material facts. | high |
| 02 | The defendant was in a superior position to know of the defect, yet chose to do nothing when the defect became known to them. The company failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the risks after knowledge of the defect. | high |
| 03 | The defendant had information regarding the true risks but failed to warn consumers and failed to strengthen product warnings. Despite knowledge of the defect and obligation to strengthen warnings, the company instead chose to actively conceal this knowledge from the public. | high |
| 04 | The defendant owed consumers a duty to ensure the accuracy of information regarding the products because such information was within the exclusive knowledge of the company and pertained to serious health issues. The defendant failed to satisfy this duty. | high |
| 05 | The defendant willfully and knowingly omitted material information regarding the quality and safety of the products. The company intended for consumers to rely on these omissions when making purchase decisions. | high |
| 06 | The defendant’s attempt to limit or disclaim implied warranties in a manner that would exclude coverage of the defect is unenforceable and void. The company cannot escape responsibility through warranty disclaimers. | medium |
Exploiting Delay
How time benefited the company · 4 points
| 01 | The power banks were sold from December 2018 through September 2024, nearly six years. During this extended period, the company was able to continue generating revenue from the allegedly defective product. | high |
| 02 | The lawsuit was not filed until March 2025, years after sales began. Each month or year the dangerous product remained on the market without adequate warnings or recall represented continued sales and profits for the company while consumers remained exposed to risk. | medium |
| 03 | The lag between the product defect existing, becoming known, and effective action being taken meant financial benefits of selling the product accrued to the company long before accountability was enforced. | medium |
| 04 | During the years the products were on the market, consumers were using them without knowing they could cause harm due to the defect in the battery. This prolonged period of unknowing risk exposure benefited only the seller. | medium |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals · 5 points
| 01 | This lawsuit represents an attempt by consumers to achieve corporate accountability where regulatory mechanisms may have been insufficient or too slow to prevent harm. The case seeks not only monetary damages but also court orders compelling the company to change its practices. | medium |
| 02 | The legal claims are extensive, including unjust enrichment, breach of warranties, fraudulent concealment, strict liability, and negligence. This multi-pronged legal attack underscores alleged failures at multiple levels in design, manufacturing, warning, and honest representation. | medium |
| 03 | The pursuit of such a case, often lengthy and expensive, highlights the significant effort required from individuals to challenge corporate misconduct and seek redress in the face of alleged systemic failures to protect them. | medium |
| 04 | The case serves as an important reminder of the potential for corporate decisions made in distant boardrooms to have tangible, dangerous impacts on the lives of ordinary people. It underscores the persistent need for robust regulatory oversight, genuine corporate accountability, and ethical business practices. | medium |
| 05 | This lawsuit is a call for systemic re-evaluation of how consumer safety is protected and how corporations are held responsible when they allegedly betray the fundamental trust placed in them by the public. | medium |
Timeline of Events
December 2018
Charmast begins selling model W1056 power banks on Amazon.com
November 2022
Plaintiff Barbara Yim purchases Charmast Power Bank model W1056
September 2024
Charmast stops selling model W1056 power banks on Amazon.com
Undisclosed (before lawsuit)
CPSC recall initiated for Charmast Power Banks due to fire and burn hazards
March 7, 2025
Class action complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
Product danger clearly stated
allegations
“the lithium-ion battery in the power banks can overheat and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers”
💡 This establishes the core safety hazard that consumers faced unknowingly.
QUOTE 2
Defendant knew alternatives existed
allegations
“Feasible alternative formulations, designs, and materials are currently available and were available to Defendant at the time the Product was formulated, designed, and manufactured.”
💡 This shows the fire hazard was avoidable, suggesting a deliberate choice not to use safer designs.
QUOTE 3
No warnings provided
allegations
“At the time of their purchases, Defendant didn’t notify Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers, of the Product’s fire risk through the product labels, instructions, other packaging, advertising, or in any other manner, in violation of the state and federal law.”
💡 This demonstrates the alleged violation of legal duties to inform consumers of dangers.
QUOTE 4
Consumers deceived
economic
“no reasonable consumer, including Plaintiff, would have purchased the Product had they known of the material omissions of material facts regarding the possibility of risk of fire hazard”
💡 This underscores that the omission was material to the purchase decision and caused financial harm.
QUOTE 5
Sales motive alleged
profit
“Defendant countenanced these material omissions to boost or maintain sales of the Product, and to create a false assurance that prolonged loyalty to Defendant’s brand—the continued use of the Product—would not place consumers in danger.”
💡 This directly alleges profit motive drove concealment of the hazard from consumers.
QUOTE 6
Products deemed worthless
economic
“Plaintiff seeks to recover damages because the Product is adulterated, defective, worthless, and unfit for safe human use due to the fire hazard contained within the Product.”
💡 This establishes the total economic loss suffered by consumers who paid for unusable goods.
QUOTE 7
Unjust enrichment claim
profit
“Because this benefit was obtained unlawfully, namely by selling and accepting compensation for a Product unfit for human use, it would be unjust and inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof.”
💡 This frames the company’s profits as ill-gotten gains that should be returned to consumers.
QUOTE 8
Fire and burn hazard specifics
health
“the Product has a risk of the lithium-ion battery in the power bank overheating and igniting, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers”
💡 This clarifies the specific mechanism and nature of the danger posed to users.
QUOTE 9
Duty to disclose
accountability
“because the Product poses an unreasonable risk of substantial bodily injury, Defendant was under a continuous duty to disclose that the Products contained a defect known to cause harm, to whoever uses it”
💡 This establishes the legal obligation the company allegedly violated due to the severity of the risk.
QUOTE 10
Deceptive marketing
pr_machine
“Defendant aimed to portray the Product as safe for frequent and repeated use and omitted key facts concerning the potential harm from burning due to the overheating of the lithium-ion battery in the Products.”
💡 This highlights the alleged discrepancy between marketing messages and product reality.
QUOTE 11
Superior knowledge
accountability
“Defendant, as the owner, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of the Products, had a duty to disclose because of Defendant’s exclusive and/or superior knowledge concerning the Products.”
💡 This establishes why the burden was on the company to inform consumers, not the other way around.
QUOTE 12
Active concealment
accountability
“Despite their knowledge of the Defect and obligation to unilaterally strengthen the warnings, Defendant instead chose to actively conceal this knowledge from the public.”
💡 This alleges not just negligence but deliberate action to hide known dangers from consumers.
QUOTE 13
Willful omissions
pr_machine
“Defendant willfully and knowingly omitted material information regarding the quality and safety of the Products as discussed herein.”
💡 This suggests intentional misconduct rather than accidental oversight or error.
QUOTE 14
Competitive advantage sought
profit
“Defendant engaged in fraudulent and deceptive conduct by devising and executing a scheme to deceptively convey that their products were safe. Defendant’s actions were done to gain a commercial advantage over competitors”
💡 This ties the alleged deception directly to business strategy and market positioning.
QUOTE 15
Extended exposure period
delay_tactics
“The Product was sold online at Amazon.com from December 2018 through September 2024.”
💡 This documents the nearly six-year period during which consumers were exposed to the alleged hazard before sales stopped.
Frequently Asked Questions
What product is this lawsuit about?
This lawsuit concerns Charmast Power Banks, specifically model W1056, which were sold in black, blue, green, mint, pink, and white colors exclusively on Amazon.com from December 2018 through September 2024.
What is wrong with the Charmast power banks?
The lawsuit alleges the lithium-ion batteries in these power banks can overheat and ignite, creating serious fire and burn hazards for anyone using or near the devices.
Did the company warn consumers about the fire risk?
No. The lawsuit claims the company failed to disclose the fire risk through product labels, instructions, packaging, advertising, or any other manner, despite allegedly knowing about the defect. The company marketed the products as safe instead.
How long were these dangerous products sold?
According to the complaint, the defective power banks were sold from December 2018 through September 2024, a period of nearly six years, before the class action lawsuit was filed in March 2025.
Why did consumers not know about the danger?
The lawsuit states the defect was latent and undiscoverable by consumers at the time of purchase and throughout the class period. Consumers had no way of knowing about the fire hazard because the company concealed it and marketed the products as safe.
What harm did consumers suffer?
Consumers who bought these power banks faced exposure to fire and burn hazards. They also suffered financial loss because they paid for products that were worthless and unsafe, not receiving the safe, functional chargers they believed they were purchasing.
Was there a recall of these power banks?
Yes. The lawsuit references a Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recall for Charmast Power Banks model W1056 due to fire and burn hazards, though this recall came after years of sales.
Could the fire hazard have been prevented?
The lawsuit alleges yes. It states that feasible alternative formulations, designs, and materials were available to the company at the time of manufacture that would not have caused the fire hazard, indicating the defect was demonstrably avoidable.
What is the company accused of doing wrong?
The company is accused of designing and selling defective products, failing to warn consumers about known fire risks, misrepresenting the products as safe through marketing, concealing material safety information to maintain sales, and being unjustly enriched by profiting from these dangerous goods.
What can I do if I bought one of these power banks?
If you purchased a Charmast Power Bank model W1056, you should stop using it immediately due to the fire risk. You may be eligible to join this class action lawsuit to seek compensation for your purchase. Check the CPSC recall notice at the Charmast website for specific recall instructions and consult with an attorney about your legal options.
💡 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.
