When Lights of America was released in the market, many people became interested in purchasing and using these LED lights. According to many brochures and packages, Lights of America LED Light Emitting Diode Lamps will produce enough light output equivalent to a specific wattage incandescent bulb and last for a certain specified number of hours.
But according to a recent class action lawsuit, Lights of America incorrectly represented the nature of its LED lights and incorrectly promised benefits to consumers that it did not deliver. The manufacturers failed to disclose that they were emitting high voltage electronic devices, thereby falsely certifying them as safe for use as car headlights. Consumers became alarmed at this misrepresentation and sought damages for their losses and pain and suffering.
Lights of America Lawsuit
In November 2021, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Lights of America, Inc., which is a leader in the production of LED lamps. The complaint alleged that the company was negligent in its representations and statements regarding the nature and operation of its LED lamps. In addition, the complaint further alleged that Lights of America failed to properly disclose the nature and performance of its LED lamps and its effect on the environment, as well as advising consumers of the dangers of improper care and use of its products.
Finally, the complaint alleged that Lights of America failed to instruct consumers about the required protection measures and warnings about the high risk of an electrical shock associated with its use. This article will discuss the merits of the complaint and the merits of the case.
The Complaint provides the following overview of the basic function and operation of an LED light.
It states that an electrical current passing through one of the pins of an LED lamp produces a detectable amount of light, which is converted into light energy by the semiconductor diodes within the lamp. According to the complaint, these diodes “permanently” retain their charge and “withdraw their power” when the current passes through them. Consequently, the diodes “withhold the supply of sufficient electricity to operate the lamp,” and as a result, the lights “function poorly.”
The key claim at issue is that this failure to supply current to the lamp causes the lamp to “withhold its power” and cause the light to dim and flicker.
Accordingly, the complaint argues that the defects are “harmful and may substantially affect the performance of the plaintiff’s property.” In addition, the complaint maintains that because the diodes “have their own electrical power independent of the power supplied by the defendant” the lights will continually fail to provide adequate light even when the current that charges the lamp does pass through the diodes.
Moreover, the complaint further contends that because the “unaustained current” flows through the diodes the “pump action” that is necessary to “fill the lamp” cannot properly connect the diodes to the internal connections of the lamp. As a result, the lights of America fail to properly power the light bulb causing it to dim and flicker.
The defendants counter that there is “no defective device” because
(a) the current in the lamps of America always passes through the diodes and
(b) the failure of one or more of the diodes does not cause the light bulb to fail. Thus, they argue that
(c) the complaint’s allegations are not supported by any evidence and
(d) that the plaintiffs have not shown that a reasonable person would not be likely to be injured by the current levels of the lamps of America.
In addition, the defendants concede that the current levels of the light bulbs do not cause injury, but argue that a case could be made that the current level of the light bulbs causes a condition known as “optical imbalance.” As a result, the defendants concede that their conduct is protected by the “manufacturing exemption” as long as they “act reasonably” to protect the public’s safety.
On the other hand, plaintiffs argue that defendants’ arguments are based on a misunderstanding of what the definition of “adequate” is.
Plaintiffs contend that the term “adequate” means the normal function performed by the diodes; however, defendants argue that it means that the current level of the lamps of America should “justify” the normal use. Consequently, the lawsuit will be heard on a motion to dismiss basis, unless the Court decides that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the case to proceed. If the Court allows the case to proceed, then the plaintiff’s claims will be allowed and the case will proceed as scheduled.