Who filed the lawsuit
Plaintiffs Blake Elwood and Terry Merrifield filed a class action complaint on October 23, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The filing is captioned as a putative nationwide class action and requests a jury trial.

Who is being sued
The defendant named in the complaint is Sunbeam Products, Inc., a company that the complaint alleges has its principal place of business at 6655 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, Georgia.

What is alleged (high-level)
The complaint alleges that Sunbeam manufactured and sold about 1,290,000 Oster French Door countertop ovens that are defective because of a spring system used in the ovens’ French doors. According to the complaint, the spring system can allow the oven doors to quickly and unexpectedly swing shut while a user’s hand or arm is reaching into the oven, posing a burn hazard. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall of the affected products on September 25, 2025.

Product details and recall
The recalled models identified in the complaint are TSSTTVFDXL, TSSTTVFDDG, TSSTTVFDMAF, and TSSTTVFDDAF. The complaint states the ovens were sold nationwide and online from August 2015 through July 2025 at retailers including Bed Bath & Beyond, Costco, and Walmart and online at Amazon.com and Overstock.com, for prices between $140 and $250. The complaint cites the CPSC notice, which the complaint says reported 95 complaints of doors unexpectedly closing and included two reports of second-degree burns.

Named plaintiffs’ allegations
Plaintiff Blake Elwood (Port St. Lucie, Florida) alleges he purchased model TSSTTVFDDG in 2022 from QVC and that the heated doors closed unexpectedly while he was removing food, burning his arm. Plaintiff Terry Merrifield (Cleveland, Ohio) alleges she purchased model TSSTTVFDDAF online and that the door unexpectedly closed while she was removing food, burning the area between her thumb and forefinger. Both plaintiffs allege they were not warned of the defect.

Key claims asserted
The complaint asserts multiple causes of action on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a proposed class:
– Count I: Strict liability—manufacturing defect (O.C.G.A. §51-1-11(b)(1));
– Count II: Negligent manufacturing defect;
– Count III: Breach of express warranty (alleging Sunbeam marketed the ovens as making “inserting and removing meals easy and convenient”);
– Count IV: Breach of implied warranty of merchantability (O.C.G.A. §11-2-314);
– Count V: Unjust enrichment (quasi-contract/equity);
– Count VI: Negligent misrepresentation (alleging false/material marketing statements).

Jurisdictional and procedural information
The complaint invokes subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. §1332(d), alleging the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that there are class members who are citizens of states different from the defendant. The complaint alleges personal jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Sunbeam maintains its principal place of business in that district. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and seek certification of the proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4).

Relief sought
The complaint seeks: an order certifying the class and naming the plaintiffs as class representatives; declaratory and injunctive relief; compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; prejudgment interest; restitution and disgorgement; attorneys’ fees and expenses; and any other equitable relief the court may deem appropriate. The complaint also challenges Sunbeam’s post-recall remedy, which the complaint describes as a consumer-installed repair kit and does not include refunds.

Additional factual assertions
The complaint alleges Sunbeam knew or should have known about the defect based on consumer complaints received over the years and that other manufacturers produce ovens without the alleged defect. Plaintiffs allege feasible alternative designs were available and that Sunbeam’s omission of warnings or adequate safeguards constitutes deceptive conduct.

Court and case information
– Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
– Filing date: October 23, 2025
– Case number: 1:26-cv-00349 (as shown on the complaint filing header)

CLASS DEFINITION: “All consumers who purchased the recalled Products with model number TSSTTVFDXL, TSSTTVFDDG, TSSTTVFDMAF or TSSTTVFDDAF in the United States during the Class Period (August 2015 through July 2025)”.