Riddell Football Helmets

May/June 2017: After some of the false advertising claims were dismissed in 2015, this action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclosed.

March 2015: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that Riddell deceptively markets its football helmets as containing “Concussion Reduction Technology” that can reduce the incidence of concussion (when compared to other modern football helmets) when, in reality, such claims are false.

January 2015: After being consolidated with another case (Thiel et al v. Riddell, Inc. et al), a federal judge dismissed the complaint because it did not specify a number of things, including where the allegedly misleading statements appeared and what was false about the alleged misrepresentations. The judge dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs can refile the complaint. (In Re Riddell Concussion Reduction Litigation, Case No. 13-cv-7585, D. NJ.)

January 2014: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Riddell, Inc. for allegedly deceptively marketing its football helmets. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the company promises its helmets provide more protection and will reduce the risk of concussions by 31% (when compared to traditional helmets) without scientific evidence to support such claims. (Aronson et al v. Riddell Inc., All American Sports Corporation d/b/a Riddell/All American, Riddell Sports Group, Inc., Easton-Bell Sports, LLC, and EB Sports Corporation, Case No. 14-cv-00126, D. NJ.).

For more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against Riddell, Inc. and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.