In a 2016 case before the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, the plaintiff attempted to bring suit on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated consumers who purchased the defendants’ ionization smoke alarms. The complaint had three counts: violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and fraudulent concealment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
There are two primary types of smoke alarms sold in the United States: ionization smoke alarms and photoelectric smoke alarms. Ionization smoke alarms generally detect flaming fires more quickly than photoelectric smoke alarms; whereas photoelectric smoke alarms generally detect smoldering fires more quickly than ionization smoke alarms. The defendants manufacture and sell ionization smoke alarms.