A recently filed class action lawsuit claims that millions of metal bristle grill brushes sold over the past decade pose a serious safety risk, and that the manufacturer’s recall efforts have left consumers without meaningful recourse. The complaint alleges that the products’ small metal bristles can detach during use, stick to food or grills, and potentially cause injury if ingested.
The lawsuit was filed by Ron Challis on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Weber-Stephen Products LLC. Challis brings the case on behalf of himself and others who purchased the recalled grill brushes.
According to court documents, approximately 3.2 million Weber-branded metal bristle grill brushes were sold in the United States between 2011 and 2026 at major retailers such as Lowe’s, Home Depot, Ace Hardware, Target, Amazon, and Weber.com. On February 26, 2026, Weber-Stephen Products LLC announced a nationwide recall in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), warning customers to “immediately stop using the recalled grill brushes” due to reports that “small wire bristles can detach from the grill brushes.” The recall notice stated that Weber was aware of at least 38 reports where bristles detached from the brush—including four incidents where consumers swallowed metal bristles and required medical treatment.
The complaint asserts that despite these risks and injuries reported by consumers over several years, Weber-Stephen Products has refused to issue refunds for affected products. Instead, customers are offered only a replacement nylon bristle brush designed for use on cold grills—a product which plaintiffs argue is not an adequate substitute because it cannot be used on hot grills as intended. “Any requests for full refunds are denied,” states the filing. “Consumers only have one option — discard the recalled grill brushes and obtain a cold cleaning nylon bristle grill brush replacement.” The suit contends this approach leaves many consumers without recourse if they no longer trust Weber products or have already discarded their defective brush.
Challis alleges that prior to purchase he reviewed product details but found no warnings about potential hazards associated with loose metal bristles. The complaint maintains that neither packaging nor advertising disclosed any defect or ingestion hazard: “Defendant failed to disclose that the metal bristles could ‘detached from the brushes, stick to the grill or food,’ and posed an ‘ingestion hazard.’ There is no warning of any kind anywhere on the Products’ labels…”
The legal filing further claims that Weber-Stephen Products had knowledge of this defect before launching these models based on pre-release testing data and ongoing monitoring of warranty claims and customer complaints. Several consumer reports submitted to both Weber-Stephen Products and CPSC since at least 2012 described instances where metal bristles dislodged during grilling—sometimes resulting in pain or requiring medical attention.
Plaintiff argues that legal remedies alone are insufficient because damages may not fully address losses suffered by class members or account for profits retained by Weber-Stephen Products through sales of allegedly defective items. The suit seeks equitable relief including restitution—the return of revenues derived from sales—as well as injunctive measures prohibiting further unlawful conduct.
The proposed classes include all people in the United States who purchased one of these products since 2011 (the Nationwide Class) as well as a California Subclass for those who bought within California. Excluded from these classes are employees or agents of Weber-Stephen Products LLC, judicial staff assigned to this case, their immediate families, and any personal injury claims.
The lawsuit alleges violations under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), unjust enrichment principles, and fraud by omission/intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiff seeks certification of these classes; appointment as class representative; declaratory judgments; actual, compensatory, statutory, nominal or punitive damages; prejudgment interest; restitution; attorney fees; costs; injunctive relief; and other remedies deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorney Brittany S. Scott of Smith Krivoshey PC represents Challis in this matter (Case No.: 1:26-cv-02612).
Source: 126cv02612 .pdf
