Call Moll Law Group About Your Case

The retro refrigerators were sold in white, red, blue and black. They are around 21 inches wide, 24 inches deep, and 58 inches high, and they have a 7.6 cubic foot capacity. There are models with either right- or left-hand opening doors, and they have a drawer, three adjustable glass shelves, and the top freezer has a door with one drawer. “Galanz” is printed on the freezer. The refrigerators in this recall have date codes from December 2018-December 2020, and one of these model numbers will be printed on a white label (along with the date code and model number) on the back of the refrigerator. They were sold at Amazon.com and at Home Depot from January 2019-September 2022 for $330-$520.

There have been at least 34 reports of refrigerator fires. According to a local fire department report, one of these caused a fatality. You should immediately stop storing food in the recalled refrigerators. It is possible to get a free in-home repair by a technician, but this would be insufficient for those who suffered burns or other harm.

If you were injured or a loved one died due to a fire associated with the Galanz retro refrigerator igniting, you may have grounds to sue for damages by bringing a product liability lawsuit. These are lawsuits filed when a dangerous defect in a product (such as a retro refrigerator) causes injuries or death. Defects may involve the design, manufacturing or marketing of a product. In addition to establishing a defect, we will need to establish a theory of liability. There are various theories accepted in different states. They can include strict liability, negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, or breach of contract. In most cases, strict liability is the most favorable to plaintiffs because it doesn’t require attorneys to prove that there was a breach of the standard of care in making the defective product.

When we are able to establish a defendant’s liability, we can recover compensation on behalf of our client. The compensation may cover both economic and noneconomic damages. Economic damages include tangible losses such as medical bills for treatment and revision surgery when necessary; lost wages; and out-of-pocket costs. Noneconomic damages can include intangible losses like pain and suffering; disfigurement from the burns; mental anguish; and loss of consortium. If a loved one died as a result of a Galanz retro refrigerator fire, you may be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit for damages.

Consult a Product Liability Attorney About Whether You Have a Claim

If you were harmed by a retro refrigerator, call the tenacious Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to figure out whether you have grounds to sue. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.

The post Retro Refrigerators Are Recalled by Galanz Americas appeared first on Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Lawsuit

The Louisville, Featherlite, Lite & Century Attic Stairway Ladders with gas struts were sold in different frame sizes. They fit into a wide range of attic openings in the ceiling. These openings can be 22.5, 25.5 and 30.0 inches wide and 54 and 60 inches long. The stairs go with ceilings that are anywhere from 7 ft. 8 inches to 12 feet. From November 2012-July 2026, they were sold at various retailers including Home Depot, Lowe’s Orgill, Amazon, and Do It Best for $170-$600.

There have been 11 reports to the company that a bolt has broken. One person was injured in their back, head, and neck.

For a remedy, customers have been asked to stop using the recalled ladders right away. You can get a free repair kit, including two replacement quarter inch spreader bolts, lock nuts, and instructions, at Atticstairwayrecall.expertinquiry.com. When you register to get the kit, you will need to identify your ladder’s model number. This is found alongside the brand name inside your attic door.

If you were injured or a loved one died on these attic stairway ladders, you should talk to an experienced attorney about whether you have grounds to bring a product liability lawsuit. These are lawsuits pursued when it’s believed that a product is defective with regard to its design, marketing, or manufacturing. Design defects involve flaws in the specifications for the product. In most cases, it’s necessary to retain an expert to determine whether there was a design defect. Marketing defects most often involve a failure to warn, though they can affect any sort of written materials that come along with the ladders. Manufacturing defects involve flaws in how the ladder was made.

In addition to establishing a defect with expert assistance, our lawyers will need to establish a theory of liability such as strict liability, negligence, statutory violations, breach of warranty, or breach of contract. In order to prove strict liability, we would need to show: (1) a manufacturing, design, or marketing defect in the ladder, (2) that the defect caused your injuries, and (3) you experienced damages.

Consult a Product Liability Attorney About Your Injuries

If you were harmed by an Attic stairway ladder, please call the knowledgeable Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to determine whether you have grounds to sue. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.

The post Attic Stairway Ladders Are Recalled by Louisville Ladder appeared first on Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Lawsuit

There are three different Easter LED headband models. One is Model 44694, which comes in white with satin ear linings with a fluffy white band and backing. The ear linings are light pink, dark pink, red or light blue. The headband is packaged in a bag marked OKK Trading, Inc. and “Item#44694.” Another is Model 46210, which comes in white, light pink, dark pink, red, purple, and turquoise and has ears with multicolor polka dots. They are packaged in bags made of clear plastic and labeled with Item#46310 and OKK Trading, Inc. Still another is Model 46309, which comes in light pink, white, purple, and turquoise. It has fluffy ears and fur edging the band. Like the others, these headbands are placed in clear plastic bag marked “Item#46309” and “OKK Trading, Inc.”

As a remedy, customers have been asked to immediately cease usage of the Easter LED Headbands and ask OKK Trading for a refund. While you’ll be asked to email recall@okktoys.com a photograph that shows you threw the headband away (and you should only dispose of button cell batteries by adhering to local hazardous waste procedures), you should not do this if your child was injured by the headband. The product could be evidence in the event that you need to bring a product liability lawsuit.

Product liability lawsuits can be pursued under various theories of liability. The ones that are available depend on the state. They can include strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, breach of contract, and statutory violations. In most cases, strict liability is the most favorable theory to plaintiffs. Using this theory means we would need to establish (1) there was a defect and (2) the defect caused your child an injury. Products can be defective with regards to their manufacturing, marketing, or design. In this case, if a mandatory standard was violated in the specifications, there is likely a design defect. However, if the mandatory standard was violated while the product was being made, there may be a manufacturing defect.

Discuss Your Child’s Injuries with a Product Liability Attorney

If your child was injured as the result of an Easter LED headband, please call the knowledgeable Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to determine whether you have grounds to sue. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.

The post Easter LED Headbands Are Recalled For Violating a Mandatory Standard for Toys appeared first on Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Lawsuit

HSN has received 30 reports that the bowls in question sparked, smoked, melted or caught fire when put in the microwave. In one case, putting the bowl in the microwave resulted in a fire that created property damage.

The Kitchen HQ thermal insulated bowls with detachable hinged lids are sold in many different colors and have metal interiors and plastic exteriors. “KITCHEN HQ” is printed over the front of the bowl. The models that are impacted include the 10-cup bowl (SKN 817800); the set that incorporates both the 10.5-cup and 2-cup bowls (SKN 884907); and the set of three that incorporates the 10.4-cup, 6-cup, and 2-cup bowls (SKN 900600).

From July 2024-February 2026, the bowls were sold on HSN.com, as well as HSN televised shows and HSN digital shopping platforms for $20 and $60.

Customers have been asked to immediately stop using the insulated bowls and to request a refund from HSN. Those who wish to keep the insulated bowls without the lid stop using the insulated bowls immediately and contact HSN for a full refund on a complete bowl and lid set. A partial refund is also available for customers who wish to keep the insulated bowls but won’t use the lid.

If you were burned as a result of a microwaved thermal insulated bowl that caught fire, you may be able to recover damages by bringing a product liability lawsuit. These are lawsuits pursued when a product is defective in terms of its manufacturing, design, or marketing. In addition to establish a defect, our attorneys will need to establish a theory of liability. Every state requires proof of different theories to allow recovery. Some of these theories include strict liability, negligence, breach of contract, statutory violations, and breach of warranty.

When we are able to establish liability, we can recover compensatory damages. These are damages intended to make the plaintiff whole. These damages must be proven with sufficient certainty. They can include both economic and noneconomic damages. Economic damages include medical bills, reimbursement, out-of-pocket costs, lost wages, and other tangible losses. Noneconomic damages include intangible losses such as pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of consortium.

Consult a Product Liability Attorney About Your Claim

If you were burned or otherwise injured because of an HSN thermal insulated bowl with a detachable hinged lid, please call the knowledgeable Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to determine whether you have a viable claim. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.

The post HSN Recalls Kitchen HQ Thermal Insulated Bowls Due to Fire Hazard appeared first on Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

This recall involves Boon NURSH 8 oz Reusable Baby Bottles 3-Pack in pink tie dye. Around 40,000 units of these reusable baby bottles were affected; TOMY has gotten 135 reports of peeling and bubbling, but there have been no reported injuries. The bottles are pink tie dye in color and came in a 3-pack. The bottles are made of soft silicone pouches surrounded by hard outer plastic shells with the Boon logo on the side of them. At the bottom of the packaging are the item number B11654 and the UPC 669028116546.

These bottles were sold at Walmart from November 2025-May 2026 as well as online on Walmart.com. They had a retail value of $20.

Customers have been asked to stop using the recalled bottles right away. You can contact TOMY to get a refund in the form of a $22 store credit from booninc.com store or a replacement set of three bottles. However, if your child was injured, you may be able to pursue compensation by filing a product liability lawsuit with the help of an experienced attorney.

Product liability lawsuits are brought when a product is defective in terms of its design, manufacturing, or marketing. Design flaws are flaws in the specifications by which a product is built. Typically, they exist in every unit of the product. In most cases, we’ll need to retain an expert to determine whether there is a design defect and whether that defect caused your injuries. Manufacturing defects, meanwhile, are flaws in how a product is made. In this case, the bottles may have a design flaw if the hard plastic surrounding the pouch is made with the correct material but the material flakes and bubbles. They may have a manufacturing defect if the wrong plastic was used.

Our attorneys will also need to establish a theory of liability. Each state has its own rules regarding the appropriate theories of liability that can be raised. These may include breach of warranty, breach of contract, negligence, or strict liability. In most cases, strict liability is the theory that most straightforwardly provides a path to relief; it requires us to prove: (1) there was a defect, (2) the defect caused your injuries, (3) damages.

Discuss Your Child’s Injuries with a Product Liability Attorney

If your child was injured as the result of a Boon NURSH reusable baby bottle, please call the knowledgeable Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to determine whether you have a viable claim. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.

The post Boon NURSH Reusable Baby Bottles Recalled Because of Choking Risk appeared first on Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Sloosh Dive Stick Case

The recalled Sloosh dive sticks are included in model 40041 packages of Sloosh water toys that were sold before October 23, 2025. These packages include not only five dive sticks but also 25 other pieces. The sticks are essentially cylinders made of hard plastic that are 7 inches long and about 1 inch or less in diameter. These sticks are different colors. You can see whether your dive sticks are part of the recall by looking at the back of the box of the Sloosh toys to see whether the model number 40041 is printed by the bar code and printed on top of one end of the dive stick, next to Joyin’s name and tracking information. The Sloosh dive sticks were sold from February 2019-October 2025 for $17-$22 at Amazon.com, Plus.Target.com, Temu.com, SHEIN.com, and Wayfair.com, from February 2019 through October 2025 for between $17 and $22.

There have been no injuries reported so far. However, consumers have been asked to stop using the recalled dive sticks right away and to take them away from children. If there were no injuries as a result of using the dive sticks, you can take a photo of them and email it to Joyin at support@joyin.com, in order to receive redesigned dive sticks that are compliant with federal regulations. This remedy would likely be inadequate, however, if your child suffered piercing or other injuries as a result of these toys. When a toy is defective and causes injuries to a child, it may be appropriate to pursue damages in a product liability lawsuit. These lawsuits can be brought when a toy or other product is defective in terms of its design, manufacturing, or marketing.

In this case, if the Sloosh dive sticks are defective, they most likely have a design defect, since they fail to comply with federal regulations. Design defects exist in all units of a product; in most cases, it is necessary to consult with an expert to determine whether there is a design defect, but a design’s failure to comply with federal regulations may be part of the calculus.

Discuss Your Child’s Injuries with a Product Liability Attorney

If your child was injured as the result of a sloosh dive stick, please call the knowledgeable Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to determine whether you have a viable basis to sue for damages. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.

The post Manufacturer Joyin Recalls Sloosh Dive Sticks Due to Serious Injury Risks appeared first on Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Case

The Florida AI lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company knowingly and aggressively marketed ChatGPT to the public, while hiding significant risks and suppressing safety warnings. Plaintiffs argue that ChatGPT is a dangerous product that has caused users to perpetrate violent acts or suffer from mental health problems. OpenAI, meanwhile, has denied it has done anything wrong.

The Florida AI lawsuit and private lawsuits similar to it are using a product liability strategy similar to the one simultaneously being used against significant social media platforms; they are claiming the AI is defective (large social media companies like Meta have been held accountable for failing to put in place safeguards against sexual predators and addiction). Product liability strategies are especially important because Congress has lagged in enacting federal AI safety regulation that would apply in every state across the country. Without uniform federal standards for the development and implementation of AI, each state is left to enact different and potentially contradictory standards.

The Florida AI lawsuit is particularly significant because it could cause other states’ attorney generals to file similar suits to act in the interest of the general public. While individual plaintiff’s cases are important for redress, the actions of many attorney generals pursuing lawsuits against AI companies could create substantial changes in how the companies design their product.

One of the notable differences between holding companies accountable for AI chatbots and other speech-related products has to do with laws like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; this law is generally based on the idea that a person who is harmed by online content must sue the user who posted the speech, not the tech platform. Since it was enacted decades ago, this law has been used by many tech companies to defend against many different types of litigation involving online activity. However, lower court judges have determined that this law may not apply in some cases when the issue is not the speech that is being posted, but how a platform is designed.

Similarly, AI companies may not be able to use section 230 to defend themselves in litigation like the Florida AI case because a chatbot, which is not human, is producing the speech that is considered harmful; since a chatbot is not human, it cannot be sued and the only remaining party to hold responsible is the tech company that designed the AI. The First Amendment may also factor into the outcome of these cases.

However, it’s also important to note that in many jurisdictions whether harm was reasonably foreseeable impacts whether experts and courts find a design defect; this question of foreseeability might present an issue in the AI lawsuits because there is a much shorter history from which harm could be foreseen for AI than there is for tobacco or social media.

Discuss Your Child’s Injuries with a Product Liability Attorney

Individual product liability lawsuits are important to obtaining redress for harm to you or your family. If you or your child was harmed by an AI chatbot, please call the knowledgeable Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to determine whether you have a viable claim for damages. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.

The post AI Companies Could Face Significant Liability for Harms to Consumers appeared first on Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

The AngioDynamic lawsuits allege that the manufacturer used too much barium sulfate in the port catheters. This substance caused cracking, pitting, and degradation in the devices, and made them more likely to fracture such that they could perforate organs or blood vessels or lead to blood clots and more. Some of the injuries reported have included pulmonary embolism, mechanical failures, infection, components getting embedded in tissue, and foreign objects migrating in patients’ bodies. When a catheter fractures inside a patient, other serious complications can occur including heart rhythm difficulties and bleeding, and further surgeries may be needed. In addition to being expensive, these procedures may come with substantial pain and suffering and emotional anguish.

The plaintiffs in 19 actions moved to centralize the litigation in the Western District of Missouri. The defendants opposed the motion and proposed, in the alternative, other districts. It was determined that the actions involved common factual questions about the excessive barium sulfate concentration that caused the material to degrade and fracture, and so centralization in the Southern District of California, where five of the actions were pending, would be in the interests of the parties’ and witness’ convenience and promote just and efficient litigation.

As of July 1, 2025, there are 401 claims pending in the AngioDynamics port catheter litigation (MDL 3125). If you were injured by an AngioDynamic port catheter, you may require a significant amount of treatment. It may be appropriate to seek compensation from the manufacturer by bringing a product liability lawsuit. These are lawsuits brought when a product or device, such as a port catheter, is defective in terms of its manufacturing, design, or marketing, or some combination of these. When our attorneys are able to establish a manufacturer’s liability for your injuries, we may be able to recover compensation on your behalf.

Compensatory damages can include reimbursement for both economic and noneconomic losses. Economic losses include such items as wage loss, replacement services, medical bills (such as those incurred by corrective surgeries), and out-of-pocket costs. Noneconomic losses include pain and suffering, mental anguish, lost earning capacity, and loss of consortium.

Discuss Your Illness with a Product Liability Attorney

If you were injured by an AngioDynamics port catheter, you should call the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to determine whether you have a viable claim for damages. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.

The post AngioDynamics Port Catheter Cases appeared first on Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

According to many of the plaintiffs in the recent duodenoscope suits, the duodenoscopes had design defects that made the scopes hard to clean such that contaminants stayed on the scopes and came into patients’ bodies during the procedures.

Duodenoscopes are used in hundreds of thousands of endoscopic retrograde (ERCP) procedures every year to examine, diagnose and treat issues in the liver, pancreas, gallbladder and bile ducts. In the early 2010s, there were numerous outbreaks of superbugs across the country. Superbugs are serious because they can resist antibiotics, which makes them especially difficult to address. Superbugs include: C. diff CRE, ESBL, and MRSA. Olympus was required to pay $6.6 million to one hospital because of a superbug outbreak resulting in a patient death in 2017.

In 2025, the FDA issued an import alert in connection with many types of Olympus scopes, including bronchoscopes, endoscope reprocessors, laparoscopes, and ureterorenoscopes, commenting that there are continued concerns about them. Future shipments of these scopes to the United States were halted and doctors were told to talk about the pros and cons of these scopes with patients.

Months afterward, Olympus put out a field safety notice that warned there were added health dangers when duodenoscope were not properly cleansed between procedures. It also advised of new cleaning instructions. It disclosed that it had gotten two death reports and five serious injury reports arising out of infections that might be related to the duodenoscopes that were the subject of the field safety notice.

A superbug infection can be difficult to treat and expensive. If you develop a superbug infection after an Olympus scope was used in your procedure, you might be able to file a product liability lawsuit for compensation. These are lawsuits brought when a product has design, manufacturing, or marketing defects. In most cases, design defects exist in every unit of a product; in other words, the Olympus scopes may have design defects if every scope is designed according to specifications that make them more difficult to clean. Manufacturing defects are often one-off problems involving a deviation from the specifications for how to make the product; this means that only a few units or a batch of units will have a flaw in how it was made. Marketing defects are flaws in the information that comes with the product.

In some cases, a hospital may also share liability for a superbug outbreak.

Discuss Your Illness with a Product Liability Attorney

If you developed a superbug infection and suspect it was caused by a duodenoscope during a medical procedure, you should call the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to determine whether you have a viable claim for damages. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.

The post Olympus Scopes Litigation Alleges Infections from Reusable Duodenoscopes appeared first on Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog.

Contact Moll Law Group About Your Claim

Prazosin is a generic version of a drug that has been available for over 25 years. Teva announced the recall on Oct. 7, 2025. It impacts over 580,000 prazosin capsules. The drug is prescribed to about 510,000 patients every year for high blood pressure, but also for PTSD.

Nitrosamines are the byproducts of common chemical reactions. They can be produced in connection with industrial processes or in food that contains nitrite preservatives such as bacon. Generally, exposure to a small amount of nitrosamines is not considered hazardous, but there have been studies showing that some nitrosamines are carcinogenic, or cancer-causing, when consumed in large quantities over longer time periods.

An initial industry guidance was published by the FDA in 2021 and updated in 2024. New testing requirements resulted in pharmaceutical companies finding nitrosamine contamination in a range of common drugs including not only blood pressure drugs but also drugs meant to address diabetes and heartburn.

If you were injured by Teva Pharmaceuticals’ prazosin, you may have grounds to file a claim. While there are other generic versions, the only one known to be contaminated is the one made by Teva. You can identify it if the bottle says MFG Teva or MFR Teva. Similarly, the prescription label may say 0093.

The recall is a Class II recall, which means that it can cause temporary or reversible negative health impacts. Your doctor may be able to prescribe a different treatment, and so if you believe your drug is affected you should consult with your doctor to determine that.

If you were harmed by prazosin, you may be able to recover damages by filing a product liability lawsuit. These are lawsuits that are brought when a drug is defective in terms of its design, manufacturing, or marketing. Design defects are flaws in the formulation of the drug. For example, if the chemical reaction that produces nitrosamines is intentional and applies to every unit of the drug, this might be a design defect. Manufacturing defects are flaws that occur in a single batch of the pills; they are flaws in how the prescription drug is made. Design defects are flaws in the materials that accompany the product; often they involve failures to warn of known dangers.

When our lawyers are able to establish a defect and a theory of liability, we may be able to recover economic and noneconomic damages on your behalf. These can include medical bills, wage loss, replacement services, and pain and suffering.

Consult a Seasoned Product Liability Attorney

If you or a loved one was harmed by Prazosin, contact the tenacious Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to figure out whether you have a viable basis to sue for damages. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.

The post FDA Recalls Blood Pressure Pills appeared first on Illinois Injury and Mass Tort Lawyer Blog.