Washington families sue major smoke-alarm makers, claiming decades of deceptive safety claims

A new federal class-action lawsuit alleges two of the nation’s largest smoke-detector manufacturers misled consumers for decades about the ability of their alarms to warn people in time during common household fires, according to the complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The suit, brought by plaintiffs Michael Stapelman of Bellevue and Tammie Hays of Centralia, claims Kidde and First Alert marketed ionization-only smoke alarms as fully protective fire-safety devices despite knowing the technology routinely fails to give residents enough time to escape smoldering fires — the type of fire most likely to occur overnight when people are sleeping.

According to the filing, ionization alarms react more quickly to flaming fires but often respond too late — or never activate — during slow-burning smoldering fires that fill a home with smoke and toxic gases long before flames appear.

Lawsuit claims Kidde, First Alert Alarms fail smoldering fires

The complaint cites decades of scientific testing, government research, and warnings from fire-safety experts who have noted sharp performance differences between ionization and photoelectric technologies.

Photoelectric alarms detect larger smoke particles common in smoldering fires and typically sound much sooner.

Plaintiffs argue that millions of U.S. households unknowingly rely on alarms that cannot provide timely warning in the most deadly scenarios.

The lawsuit says families reasonably believe any device sold as a “smoke alarm” will help alert them to all common home-fire conditions — a belief the plaintiffs say manufacturers encouraged through packaging and marketing.

The complaint details multiple examples of product boxes describing ionization alarms as “smoke alarms” in large, prominent wording.

Any mention of ionization technology or its limitations appears in much smaller text, often on the underside or back of the package, where consumers are unlikely to look.

Plaintiffs argue this design choice conceals crucial safety information and contradicts the devices’ primary labeling.

The filing also says both companies were aware of performance failures dating back to the 1970s, but continued to mass-produce the products because they were inexpensive to manufacture.

It alleges the companies “placed profits over people,” selling millions of ionization-only alarms that could not reliably detect smoldering fires while publicly presenting them as suitable for general household protection.

A new Underwriters Laboratory testing standard that took effect in 2024 reportedly requires alarms to detect smoldering fires more accurately.

The lawsuit states the ionization-only models at issue cannot pass this updated standard and have since been discontinued — a shift the plaintiffs argue reflects longstanding safety gaps that were not conveyed to consumers.

Stapelman says he purchased Kidde alarms online, while Hays purchased a First Alert device at a Walmart in Chehalis.

Both believed they were buying alarms capable of alerting them to common home fires, according to the complaint.

The filing says neither would have bought the devices had they known about the alleged limitations.

The plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of consumers nationwide and want the court to stop Kidde and First Alert from labeling ionization-only products as “smoke alarms” without clearer disclosure of their limits.

Resideo has since issued a statement:

“Resideo is a leader in fire safety, and we take the safety of our customers very seriously. The products that are referenced in the complaint have been designed to meet Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standards that are required for safety and performance of residential smoke alarms. The products have been tested and meet the UL standards to which they are marked. We believe our marketing representations regarding such products accurately and clearly reflect their functionality. We will vigorously defend ourselves against allegations to the contrary.”