Law360 (June 10, 2025, 1:13 PM EDT) — A California federal judge declined to fully dismiss a proposed class action against Amazon.com alleging it sold waist trainers that left users with skin injuries and rashes, saying they adequately claimed there is a defect in the products that the company failed to warn them about.
In an order filed Monday, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria allowed failure to warn, design defect, breach of implied warranty and Unfair Competition Law claims to proceed in the suit led by Isabella Valles, while dismissing her manufacturing defect, negligent product liability, breach of express warranty and fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims.
In her complaint, filed in January, Valles and others alleged that they purchased Yianna Waist Trainer for Women Hourglass Body Shapers through Amazon, only to end up with adverse skin reactions after wearing them, including rashes, burns and blisters. They allege that the product’s only warning — that it includes latex that could cause an allergic reaction — is inadequate, as their injuries are not allergic in nature.
In Monday’s order, Judge Chhabria wrote that while the plaintiffs haven’t identified what substance in the products is causing these injuries, that isn’t necessary to shore up the failure to warn claims at this time, as they have sufficiently claimed that the latex warning is not enough, particularly as the latex does not contact the users’ skin when the product is used as advertised.
The consumers have also sufficiently alleged that Amazon was on notice of the defect thanks to product complaints dating back to 2017, which showed pictures similar to those in the complaint of skin conditions that mirrored the structure of the product, according to the order.
The claims are also enough to support the design defect claims, Judge Chhabria wrote, as they have alleged that it is not an allergic reaction and that the risks of the product as designed can outweigh any benefits.
Likewise, the breach of implied warranty claims survive as the judge found that the customers sufficiently alleged that the products are unfit for their ordinary purpose of being worn, while the UCL claims survive as the complaint claims that Amazon’s actions were plausibly unlawful and unfair under that law, the judge wrote.
However, Valles and the other plaintiffs haven’t alleged how the product supposedly deviates from the intended design, sinking their manufacturing defect claims, nor could they establish that Amazon’s negligence was responsible, as the website did not design or manufacture the products, the judge wrote.
And while the plaintiffs identified promises that they say Amazon breached in the express warranty, that claim fails as they do not know what material is causing the problem, except possibly an adhesive, the judge wrote. The consumers don’t allege that they wouldn’t have bought the waist trainers if they had seen any adhesive on the list of materials, he added.
In the same vein, the judge found that the complaint doesn’t say the consumers relied on any misrepresentations, nor do they plead deliberate concealment or misrepresentations on Amazon’s part with enough particularity for the fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims to proceed.
Representatives for the parties could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.
The consumers are represented by Christopher R. Rodriguez, Andrew D. Bluth and John R.Ternieden of Singleton Schreiber LLP, and James F. Hayes and Jillian F. Hayes of Hayes Law APC.
Amazon is represented by Julie L. Hussey, Jacob L. Speckhard and Mallory Gitt Webster of Perkins Coie LLP.
The case is Valles et al. v. Amazon.com LLC et al., case number 3:24-cv-06233, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
–Editing by Adam LoBelia.
