Zito v. United Technologies Corp., No. 3:15-cv-00744, 2016 WL 2946157 (D. Conn. Mar. 11, 2016)
Plaintiff alleged that defendants' ionization smoke alarms were deceptively marketed as "smoke alarm[s]" because they could not sense smoldering fire as quickly as do photoelectric smoke alarms. The court held that the omission of this fact on the front of the package does not render use of the term "smoke alarm" deceptive because the alarms do, in fact, detect smoke. The court further noted that the packaging included sufficient disclosures about ionization technology and that the notice on the bottom of the box clearly explained that an ionization smoke alarm may not detect smoke from a smoldering fire in as timely a manner as would a photoelectric smoke alarm. View the decision.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.