SharkNinja Beats Consumer’s Defective, Deceptive Blenders Claims

SharkNinja Inc. defeated consumer class claims alleging it defectively and negligently design and advertised its blenders, but must still face individual consumer claims of design defect.

The consumer failed to plead that SharkNinja’s “advertising was unfair, deceptive, or otherwise materially misleading under either Massachusetts or New York consumer protection statutes,” Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts said Monday.

The ruling comes nearly a year after Ali Zamani sued the company on behalf of himself and other consumers who allegedly suffered bodily injuries from the blenders. Zamani, who bought a blender on Amazon, said SharkNinja designed “unreasonably dangerous blenders” that have a “design defect whereby their blades do not lock into the bases of the blenders, allowing the blades to fall out.”

Zamani brought two individual design defect claims and three class claims for alleged unfair and deceptive practices under Massachusetts and New York laws, saying consumers were led to buy a product with less value than they were led to believe due to the deceptive marketing.

Zamani didn’t allege that SharkNinja purposefully omitted information in its advertising, the court said, granting the company’s partial motion to dismiss the consumer protection claims.

Given the abundance of information disclosed by SharkNinja on the Amazon webpage regarding the detached blade assembly and its associated risk, which was available to Zamani prior to his purchase, the court held that Zamani failed to sufficiently allege that the company engaged in any unfair or deceptive conduct that caused him, “as a reasonable consumer, to buy the Product for more than it was worth.”

The district court also dismissed Zamani’s fraud claim, which was based upon the same allegedly deceptive omissions as the previous claims. However, the blender manufacturer still faces two individual claims brought by Zamani and will have to answer within two weeks of the order.

Lee Litigation Group PLLC represents Zamani. Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP represents SharkNinja.

The case is Zamani v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al, D. Mass., No. 1:24-cv-12313, 7/7/25