This is misleading. The lawsuit was filed by three Whirlpool refrigerator owners. You can read the lawsuit text embedded here. According to this article:

• "[A] court must certify a class action lawsuit, which means the court determines that all of the unnamed plaintiffs share a common claim with the named plaintiffs, that there is a large group of potential plaintiffs and that the named plaintiffs have claims that are representative of the entire class."

I do not believe that a court has certified this case as a class action lawsuit so there would be only three plaintiffs at this point.

-- not a lawyer

And because you are not a lawyer, wdcruise, or know how to look up a court case and read its docket of entries, you don't know that the complaint for this case was amended on April 9 (https://ecf.ded.uscourts.gov/doc1/04316383214) and now includes 14 named plaintiffs and consolidated the cases by stipulation.

I assume that "consolidated the cases by stipulation" means that there would be one trial for all 14 plaintiffs, is that correct? Has it been certified as "class action lawsuit" by a court? Does this lawsuit extend beyond these 14 plaintiffs? Certainly thousands of people have purchased Whirlpool models listed in the lawsuit. Does the lawsuit now cover all of them?

A class action lawsuit has to start somewhere. The one against the Pella Corporation started out with two plaintiffs and ended up including “all persons in the United States who are current or former owners of structures containing Pella Proline windows made by Pella during the 15-year period from 1991 to 2006”. You might like to think that a lawsuit against Whirlpool will stop at 14 plaintiffs, but the reality is that it won’t.

@M Miller: "You might like to think that a lawsuit against Whirlpool..."

Huh? I was responding to the OP's claim that "[t]here is a major class action suit against Whirlpool" which was (and still is) incorrect. And unless you have a crystal ball, you have no idea what "the reality" will be.

Whirlpool, in MY opinion, is an example of Harvard MBAs using the system to maximize corporate profit. They were a competent competitor in the US marketplace. They competed with good engineering at reasonable price points. Enter the MBAs. Why compete when you can buy out Amana, Kitchenaid, Maytag, etc. 2006 in the Bush presidency with no antitrust protection for consumers. Do that and you can saturate the market with the same products covered by a minimal 1 year 'warranty. Make a lot more lowering the lifespan and sell more units to the same pool of suckers. Whirlpool is a disgrace to the core of American exceptionalness.

Ikea first chose Whirlpool as their appliance supplier when they came to the US. Ikea gives a 5 year no added cost warranty on appliances they sell. Whirlpool can't meet that minimal level of reliability. It was a failure. Ikea has dropped Whirlpool. They now use Electrolux.

Hitachi is the most popular brand of frig in Japan. We need Japanese refrigerators in our market.

A judge will decide whether or not to certify a lawsuit as a class action lawsuit if the facts of the suit meet the 4 criteria for certification. Given that that others had already filed against Whirlpool, which were later consolidated into the case that you are discussing, it sounds like it class action status is highly likely to be awarded.

HU-910663146: "it sounds like it class action status is highly likely to be awarded"

This is speculation.

@wdccruise why are you so invested in this? Do you own Whirlpool stock? There's also a class action suit proposed over Whirlpool dishwashers. I would think that you - as one of the appliances "gurus" on this forum - would be happy that the consequences of these suits may encourage Whirlpool to decide that the cost of the lawsuits is greater than the cost of improving their quality control.

I found the original article at the website called topclassactions.com and made the crazy assumption that it was a class action suit after reading the first sentence, "Whirlpool Corp. faces a class action lawsuit alleging it manufactured and sold Whirlpool refrigerators with defective wiring that can pose a safety hazard." The article goes on, but what part of it was misleading?

“What YOU wrote is misleading. You wrote, "There is a major class action suit against Whirlpool" when that "major" suit was filed by three people, and followed up with the claim that refrigerators were "designed to break" rather than there was a defect in the design.”

The number of filers isn’t really important, the size of the class is what matters. If this was something that happened for a significant period, it would likely be major as the class would be quite large.

I don’t have any knowledge of planned obsolescence, but that is certainly something that companies have done before. While claiming the problem was intentional may be a bit sensational, pretending it is just a design defect seems charitable. The lawsuit notes thst they used wiring that was not durable enough for the designed function, which usually means the appliance was value engineered and the cheaper part used because the failure rate was acceptable. The law suit alleges that they had reason to know it was failing more than a decade ago and decided not to make changes.

@bry911: "The number of filers isn’t really important..."

Three. Got it.

“Three. Got it.”

wdccruise most people would want a larger number. You’re stuck at three. Got it. 👌

“Three. Got it.“

One. Get it?

The entire idea being that a person or small group of people can sue on behalf of a larger group (a.k.a. class). They will later have the opportunity to identify and contact members of the class.

bry911: "They will later have the opportunity to identify and contact members of the class."

Who's "they".

The law firms who agree to become involved in a lawsuit seeking class action status make a decision whether or not to become involved since this can become quite expensive for a law firm to underwrite.

Who's "they".

What is the point of further discussion? You seem to want to argue about class action lawsuits even though you also seem not to understand them. I was just pointing out that the number of filers isn't representative of the size of the class and therefore little to do with the magnitude of the suit. If your question isn't disingenuous and you actually want to learn how class action lawsuits work, please let me know and I will see if I can find some resources for you.

I have a feeling wdccruise has a point to make which he/she/it/they is unwilling/unable to reveal for the time being. For now simply being skeptical and argumentative is all they are willing to manage. Give them some time to learn more about the topic and maybe it will eventually become helpful. Perhaps if wdccruise were to purchase the offending refrigerator from Whirlpool, the purpose of the action would become more important when the ice maker crappped out.

dchall_san_antonio: "I have a feeling wdccruise has a point to make which he/she/it/they is unwilling/unable to reveal for the time being."

Q: Is wdccruise...

• a. Male
• b. Female
• c. Not a person
• d. Several people

A: It cannot be revealed...for the time being!

Plenty is revealed.

You started talking about something that you had absolutely no clue about. Now you are acting like a petulant teenager to save face. Most people here are adults and just don’t buy it, so quit while you are behind.

Moreover, Whirlpool doesn’t need or deserve your devotion. They may well make a good product and be decent company, but they are still a modern publicly traded corporation and slaves to the quarterly earnings report. They have repurchased 1/3 of their shares in the last ten years while increasing dividends. If you believe for a second that Whirlpool wouldn’t do something bad for customers if it was good for profits then you are a bigger fool than most.

Class action suits can be a valuable consumer protection tool as they disincentivize bad behavior.