Milberg Class Action Attempts to Clear the Air On Colzer Purifier
Consumers were misled into purchasing a model of air purifier based on false manufacturer promises about the product’s effectiveness, alleges a class action lawsuit filed by Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC (“Milberg”). The lawsuit makes the case for establishing two separate classes of consumers who may have suffered financial harm from overpaying for air purifiers that are unable to perform as advertised.
Lawsuit Keys In On Air Purifier Industry Standards
The defendant in the lawsuit—Siki Eagle Sarl (aka “Colzer”)—is a French company that sells air purifiers, including the product at issue, the Colzer 142C air purifier, which is marketed as being capable of purifying a 550 sq. ft. room and having a Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) of 23 cubic feet per minute (cfm). However, as Milberg’s lawsuit details, the 550 sq. ft recommended coverage advertised by Colzer is inaccurate based on applicable industry standards.
When applying the industry standard for a recommended room size coverage for the Colzer 142C air purifier, the product is falsely labeled and the plaintiff and class members paid a price premium as a result, claims Milberg’s lawsuit.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) developed the CADR performance metric in the 1980s. It is recognized as a credible industry standard and utilized by prominent organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Consumers Union.
CADR measures how much filtered air is received from an air purification system. It is calculated using two factors: filter efficiency (i.e., the percentage of particles removed) and air flow through the filters on the highest fan speed. For example, a unit that produces 100 cfm with 90% filter efficiency has a CADR of 90 (100 times 90%). Finding the correct CADR for a given room requires dividing room size, measured in square feet, by 1.55. Thus, if a room is 250 sq. ft., it requires a CADR of 160 or higher (e.g., 250 divided by 1.55 = 161).
According to Milberg’s complaint, Colzer claims that the 142C is a 550 sq. ft. air purifier with a CADR of 123 cfm. But based on the AHAM standard, the product is only capable of purifying 191 sq. ft., rather than the advertised 550 sq. ft. Purifying the air in a room of that size would require a cfm of 354 or greater, the complaint also notes.
“Therefore, when applying the industry standard for a recommended room size coverage for the Product, the Product is falsely labeled and Plaintiff and Class Members paid a price premium as a result,” according to the lawsuit. “In making their purchases, Plaintiff and putative class members paid a substantial price premium due to the false and misleading claim that the Product can purify a 550 sq. ft. room, when it cannot.”
Proposed Classes and Remedies
The lead plaintiff in the case is a California resident who purchased a Colzer 142C air purifier for $139.99 and says he relied on manufacturer representations that that the unit is capable of purifying a 550 sq. ft. room, even though it is only capable of purifying a room of less than half that size. He filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and other consumers in the following two classes:
- National Class: All persons in the United States who purchased a Colzer 142C for personal use and not for resale within the United States during the fullest period allowed by law.
- California Class: All persons in the State of California who purchased the Product for personal use and not for resale within the State of California during the fullest period allowed by law.
The class action lawsuit alleges violations of federal and California law and seeks a range of remedies, including monetary damages, restitution, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. It is pending certification in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Anyone who meets the definition of the California Class or National Class may be eligible to join the lawsuit and receive a share of any resulting settlement or verdict.
Milberg is a national leader in class action and consumer product litigation and has recovered more than $50 billion for its clients since 1965. For updates on this case and all firm news, follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
If you purchased a product that may have been misbranded or mislabeled, please contact us to discuss your rights.