Consumers who purchased certain metal wire grill brushes are seeking compensation after a recall was announced due to safety concerns over detached bristles, which can pose an ingestion hazard and risk of serious internal injuries. The complaint, filed by Steve Hess on March 10, 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Weber-Stephen Products LLC, outlines allegations that the company sold millions of defective grill brushes and failed to adequately address known dangers through its recall process.
According to the filing, Steve Hess brings this case individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, claiming that Weber-Stephen Products designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold metal wire grill brush products with a defect that could result in small metal bristles detaching from the brush. The complaint states that these bristles could stick to grills or food and be ingested by consumers, potentially causing serious internal injuries requiring surgery. The recall announced by Weber-Stephen Products on February 26, 2026 included models 6277, 6278, 6463, 6464, 6493, and 6494 with plastic or wood handles measuring between 12 and 21 inches long.
The lawsuit alleges that “Defendant was aware of the issues caused by metal wire bristles and continued to manufacture and sell the Products for years knowing that they contained the Defect.” It further claims that “Defendant delayed the Recall, when it should have announced it many years ago,” arguing that public reports about such hazards have existed for more than a decade. The complaint references articles published by organizations including Consumer Reports in July 2018 and Today in May 2024 warning about injuries from wire grill brushes.
Plaintiff Hess asserts he purchased one of the recalled products—an 18-inch black handle brush (model number 6278)—from a Home Depot in Hawthorne, New York around July 2025. He used it to clean his grill while hot but stopped using it after experiencing bristle detachment firsthand. The suit claims Hess relied on Weber’s reputation for high-quality grilling products but was not informed about potential defects at or before purchase: “Defendant failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff prior to and at the time of purchase. Had Plaintiff known of the Defect, he would not have purchased the Product on the same terms or for the same price.”
The lawsuit criticizes Weber’s recall remedy as insufficient because it only offers a replacement cold cleaning nylon bristle brush rather than a comparable product suitable for use on hot grills. Additionally, no refund option is provided as part of the recall program. The complaint also describes participation requirements as burdensome: “Defendant only allowing participation for those who still possess the Product…requiring those consumers to download an app…send an image of the brush…and confirm destruction of the recalled Product in order to receive the replacement brush.” As a result, Hess contends that affected consumers have not received adequate redress.
The legal arguments include alleged violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 (deceptive acts or practices) and 350 (false advertising), unjust enrichment, fraud, and negligence. The complaint states: “Defendant’s deceptive and misleading practices constitute deceptive acts and practices in conduct of business in violation of New York General Business Law §349(a)”; “Defendant’s labeling and advertisements contain untrue and materially misleading statements concerning Defendant’s Products”; “Defendant knowingly received and enjoyed benefits conferred by Plaintiff and Class Members”; “Defendant’s conduct was fraudulent because it had effect of deceiving consumers into believing its marketing…as safe when in fact [they] contain[ed] Defect”; “Defendant directly or indirectly caused Products to be sold…without thorough…testing”; among other allegations.
Hess seeks class certification for all U.S. purchasers (and alternatively New York purchasers) since at least 2011—when sales began—throughout stores such as Lowe’s, Home Depot, Ace Hardware, Target as well as online platforms like Amazon.com and Weber.com. Damages sought include statutory damages under state law (with minimums specified), restitution/disgorgement of profits obtained through alleged unlawful conduct, injunctive relief compelling changes in practice or remedy offerings going forward—including notification costs—and attorneys’ fees.
Attorneys listed on behalf of Steve Hess include Ben Travis (Ben Travis Law APC), Rachel Soffin (Pearson Warshaw LLP), Melissa S. Weiner (Pearson Warshaw LLP), Nick Suciu II (Bryson Harris Suciu & DeMay PLLC), and Trenton R. Kashima (Bryson Harris Suciu & DeMay PLLC). The case is identified as Case No.: 1:26-cv-02657.
Source: 126cv02657_Steve_Hess_v_Weber_Stephen_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
