After last December’s recall on certain Stanley Travel Mugs, a class action was soon filed alleging that Stanley’s parent company, Pacific Market International, refused to properly refund customers, instead offering a low-quality replacement.

PMI filed a dismissal bid last Thursday, arguing that the consumers involved in the suit never engaged with Stanley’s solution to the recall. Stanley offered new and improved replacement lids for the voluntarily recalled Switchback and Trigger Action travel mugs.

  • A report from the Consumer Product Safety Commission said that the two mugs had the potential for lid threads to shrink from heat and torque, potentially causing the lid to detach during use.
  • Stanley received 91 reports from across the globe of this happening, including 38 instances involving burn injuries.
  • With the recall, Stanley offered free improved replacement lids with free shipping, according to the report.


This offer, according to PMI, was not used by the class action participants. PMI’s filing claims that plaintiffs can’t prove that the recall didn’t fix the issue, “since they have not obtained or used the replacement lid.”

Legal Battles

The case began with Danielle Scherzi of New York and now has been consolidated with cases from Leah Babiarz of Illinois and Mark Munoz of California. The plaintiffs plan to represent all consumers based on claims such as, “breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation,” according to reporting by Rachel Riley of Law360.

This isn’t the first time Stanley has caused litigation for PMI:

  • Last January, Stanley drinkware went viral for possibly containing lead. PMI confirmed that lead is a part of the insulation, but it doesn’t come into contact with consumers due to a stainless-steel layer.
  • The class action case regarding the lead presence was dismissed.


PMI was also recently sued by Stanley Black & Decker over the use of the name “Stanley.” With lead poisoning concerns and burn incidents, Stanley Black & Decker claimed that it was confusing customers in the marketplace and hurting its reputation.