Consumers who purchased certain grill brushes over a fifteen-year period are seeking legal remedies after discovering that the products may pose a significant safety risk. A class action complaint was filed on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Jaqueline Dushaj against Weber-Stephen Products LLC, a manufacturer of metal wire bristle grill brushes.
The lawsuit centers on approximately 3.2 million units of Weber-branded Metal Wire Bristle Grill Brushes sold from 2011 through 2026. According to the complaint, these products were recalled on February 26, 2026, following an announcement by both Weber-Stephen Products and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Consumers were warned to “immediately stop using the recalled grill brushes” due to reports that “small metal wire bristles can detach from the brushes, stick to the grill or food, posing an ingestion hazard and risk of serious internal injuries that could require surgery.” The defendant acknowledged “at least 38 reports and reviews where small wire bristles detached from the grill brushes,” including four cases where consumers swallowed metal bristles and required medical treatment.
The plaintiff alleges that Weber-Stephen’s recall does not provide adequate relief for affected customers. Under current procedures, customers are eligible only for a replacement cold cleaning nylon bristle grill brush rather than a refund. The complaint argues this replacement is not equivalent because it can only be used on cold grills, whereas the original product was designed for use on both hot and cold grills. The plaintiff claims this does not meet what consumers bargained for when purchasing the original product.
Jaqueline Dushaj states she purchased one of these products in Middletown, New York during Spring or Summer of 2024 at a Best Buy retail store after reviewing product details which did not disclose any defect. She asserts that neither labeling nor sales materials mentioned any risk related to detaching bristles or ingestion hazards.
The complaint further alleges that throughout their sale period—from 2011 through early 2026—Weber-Stephen marketed these grill brushes as safe and durable tools suitable for cleaning hot grills but failed to disclose any potential hazard associated with loose bristles. Product descriptions highlighted features such as “thick stainless steel bristles [that] resist wear” and instructions encouraged use after preheating grills for cleaning purposes. However, no warnings about possible detachment or injury risks appeared on packaging or promotional materials.
According to court documents, Weber-Stephen became aware of complaints about detached bristles prior to issuing its recall but continued selling affected models until at least thirty-eight incidents had been reported—including four requiring surgical intervention. The complaint asserts that monitoring consumer complaints is standard industry practice and suggests that both direct reports to Weber-Stephen and those submitted via CPSC should have put the company on notice regarding systemic defects in their products.
The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action representing all U.S. purchasers of these grill brushes within applicable statutes of limitations up until notice dissemination. It also proposes subclasses under New York law and multi-state consumer protection statutes covering similar claims across several states listed in detail within the filing.
Plaintiffs allege violations under New York General Business Law sections 349 (deceptive acts or practices) and 350 (false advertising), as well as breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud by omission/intentional misrepresentation, and violation of various state consumer protection laws. They argue they suffered economic harm because they would not have bought—or would have paid less for—the products had they known about potential hazards.
Relief sought includes compensatory damages, statutory damages (including actual damages or specified minimums), punitive damages where available under state law, restitutionary disgorgement of profits gained by defendant through sales of defective products, injunctive relief preventing further deceptive practices or omissions regarding product safety hazards, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
and other remedies deemed just by the court.
Representing Jaqueline Dushaj and proposed classes is attorney Frederick J. Klorczyk III of KamberLaw LLC based in New York City. The case is identified as Case No.: 1:26-cv-02639.
Source: 126cv02639_Jaqueline_Dushaj_v_Weber_Stephen_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
