Skip to main content


Product Liability Lawyer reviewing toxic home product cases and lawsuits for plaintiffs nationwide
Nationwide Success

Laundry Pods Injury Lawsuits

investigating toxic home product cases

Consumer Reports and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have reported that laundry pods can pose a serious threat to both children and to adults with dementia who may mistake the colorful pods as edible. Unsuspecting consumers have been ingesting liquid laundry detergent packets, and facing injuries related to the laundry pod poisoning.

Laundry detergent pods pose a life-threatening risk. The CPSC has said there were eight deaths related to ingesting laundry pods between 2012 and early 2017—including six adults and two young children.

Soon after laundry detergent pods were introduced in 2012, Consumer Reports urged manufacturers to make them safer and less tempting to children who are known to be attracted to colorful products. In 2015 the organization advised consumers against keeping pods in households with children under the age of six years old.

Safety officials continue to warn that manufacturers should modify the appearance of laundry packs, to not look like candy, and to lead to laundry pod poisoning.

Joe Lyon is a highly-rated product liability attorney and personal injury lawyer representing plaintiffs nationwide in a wide variety of toxic tort claims.

What are Laundry Pods?

Used by millions of American consumers, convenient single-load packets are designed to dissolve in washing machines and release highly concentrated liquid detergent. According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), the concentrated formula poses a greater poison risk than conventional detergent. Laundry pods are known on the market as Pods, Mighty Pacs, Power Pacs, Power-Caps, PowerBlasts, PowerCore Pacs, and Flings.

Lawmakers have yet to put mandatory safety standards in place. Safety groups have suggested certain safeguards like requiring safety latches on packages, opaque packaging, and adding a bitter tasting film to packets to discourage eating.

Procter & Gamble is developing harder-to-open packaging and enhanced warning labels for their Tide Pods. P&G said they have been working with the Alzheimer’s Association to help prevent accidents.

Laundry Pods Poisoning Injury

In 2012, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a report calling laundry pod poisoning exposure “an emerging public health hazard.” In just three years, the AAPCC received over 38,000 reports of exposure to liquid laundry detergent by ingesting, inhaling, getting it in their eyes, or skin absorption.

Children under six account for 90 percent of reported incidents. The other cases of laundry pod poisoning are generally the elderly suffering from dementia. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, brightly colored laundry pods pose more of a danger to adults with dementia than they do to kids.

The wrapping of a laundry pod is made of polyvinylalcohol (PVA), which allows it to dissolve in the machine washing laundry, or in a person’s mouth, leading to the immediate release of toxins and potential laundry pod poisoning. Ingesting these chemicals can lead to severe breathing problems, damage to the esophagus, chemical burns, gastrointestinal problems and neurological symptoms, and death.

To prevent toxic exposure to the toxic chemicals in the pods, the following is recommended:

  • Do not let children or adults with dementia handle the laundry packets.
  • Keep liquid laundry pods sealed in original packaging, locked up and out of sight and reach.
  • Ensure hands are dry before using a laundry pod, and wash and dry your hands after each use.
  • If swallowed or exposed to the eye, seek medical attention immediately.


Please complete the form below for a FREE consultation.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.


Joseph Lyon has 17 years of experience representing individuals in complex litigation matters. He has represented individuals in every state against many of the largest companies in the world.

The Firm focuses on single-event civil cases and class actions involving corporate neglect & fraud, toxic exposure, product defects & recalls, medical malpractice, and invasion of privacy.


The Firm offers contingency fees, advancing all costs of the litigation, and accepting the full financial risk, allowing our clients full access to the legal system while reducing the financial stress while they focus on their healthcare and financial needs.

photo of attorney Joe Lyon reviewing laundry pods cases
A Voice for Those who have suffered

Why are these cases important?

Many product liability cases have had a positive impact on public health and safety, and we have witnessed improved lives and future injuries prevented as companies are forced to remove products and change designs and warnings as a result of litigation.


  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Questions about Laundry Pods Injury Cases

Are all laundry pods dangerous?

If used properly, most laundry pods should be safe for consumer use. However, if the product is not kept from children, there may be serious health consequences. 

Do I have a Laundry Pod Case?

Product liability lawsuits often contain causes of action for strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Strict liability applies to different factors than negligence-based claims.

In negligence cases, the actions of the defendant are the focus. In strict liability claims, the focus is on the condition of a product at the time it left the manufacturer. If a laundry pod product is determined to be defective, the company is liable for any foreseeable injuries that are in-part caused by the defective condition of the product.

How is a Cleaning Product Defined as Defective?

A product is defective if it is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. A legal cause of action can be based on several types of product defects. The following are product liability and strict liability claims available in Ohio and in most jurisdictions nationwide:

(1)  Manufacturing/ Construction Defect:

These issues arise where the product is released from the factory in a manner that deviates from the intended design or specifications. The defect can be a result of using the wrong materials, including the wrong or completely foreign materials (e.g., Tylenol contamination, food poisoning, damaged car part from factory installation).

As a result of the deviation, the product enters the market in an unreasonably dangerous condition and the consumer is exposed to or purchases a product that is defective. Any personal injuries or economic loss that arise from the the defect are compensable under Ohio product liability law.

(2) Defective design and/or formulation:

Defective design product liability cases arise not because a mistake was made during the manufacturing process, but rather the original design of the product is unreasonably dangerous. A “risk benefit analysis” is used to determine whether safer/less expensive alternative designs were available to the manufacturer.

Federal regulations set minimum standards for the design of many consumer products, and preemption defenses may preclude liability in some situations if the manufacturer follows and obtains federal approval for a product. Automotive recalls and product liability cases are usually a result of a defective design. Common cases include the Toyota Brake Recall, Chrysler Gen III seat belt buckle, lap belt only cases, Metal on Metal hip implants, transvaginal mesh.)

(3) Failure to warn or inadequate warning or instruction associated with the product:

All consumer products come with necessary and appropriate warnings and instructions for use. If the lack of a warning makes the product and use of the product unsafe, the manufacturer is liable for the failure to place the warning. The most common area of litigation for failure to warn is in pharmaceutical litigation.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to warn of the known or foreseeable side effects and update the warnings in a timely manner. Litigation arises where there is evidence the manufacturer failed to timely update a warning in light of new data or simply ignored the risk and failed to conduct sufficient research to identify and then disclose the risk.

(4) Misrepresentation:

The product fails to conform to a representation or warranty. Warranty claims are more common in commercial and economic loss cases than in personal injury cases. In many States, The Product Liability Act does not apply to cases with only economic loss, because the Commercial Code provides recourse for breach of warranty.

The warranty may be written or implied based upon the products intended purpose and merchantability. An example of a breach of warranty cases are cases involving automotive defects.

Are companies required to have proper toxicity warnings?

In determining whether a product is defective due to inadequate warning or instruction, evidence must be presented to prove:

  • The manufacturer knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about a toxic risk
  • A reasonable detergent manufacturer would have provided a warning of the risk
  • The manufacturer failed to provide a toxic ingestion warning
  • The person was injured due to a lack of warning. The same elements apply whether the claim is based on a warning present during the marketing or post-sale warnings.

Defenses to Failure to Warn Claims(1) the risk was open and obvious or a matter of common knowledge.

Many large companies have been targeted in failure to warn lawsuits for either failing to place warnings on medication guides and packaging or failing to properly test their product before putting it to market.

Who regulates household consumer products?

Design and manufacturing defects result in thousands of product recalls each year in the United States, initiated by federal safety agencies. Following injury and illness, regardless of recall status, victims and plaintiffs may pursue legal action and contact a product liability lawyer to begin the litigation process. Rightful compensation can be sought and help plaintiffs recover medical costs and other related damages.

Product liability law overlaps with regulatory law, which are the systems of legislative rules and administrative agencies, and part of federal and state governments. These agencies regulate the safety of the products sold to the public. Examples include:

  • The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
  • The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA;)
  • The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

The listed government agencies, however, may initiate recalls of dangerous products but do not provide remedies or compensation for damages where an individual is injured due to the defective product.

Should I hire The Lyon Firm?

The Lyon Firm has the experience, resources and dedication to take on difficult and emotional toxic exposure cases and help our clients obtain the justice for the wrong they have suffered. 

Experience:  Joe Lyon is an experienced Product Liability Lawyer. The Lyon Firm has 17 years of experience and success representing individuals and plaintiffs in all fifty states, and in a variety of complex civil litigation matters.  Product Liability lawsuits can be complex and require industry experts to determine the root cause of an accident or injury.  Mr. Lyon has worked with experts nationwide to assist individuals understand why an injury occurred and what can be done to improve their lives in the future. Some cases may go to a jury trial, though many others can be settled out of court.

Consumer Safety Litigation

Learn More About the Process

Toxic consumer products on the market present safety and health hazards for adults and children. Cheap and defective products may pose fire and burn risks; electrocution, strangulation and choking risks; and severe health risks. The manufacturers of consumer household chemicals and home cleaning products have a duty to foresee potential injury and properly design and test products before they are released.

Companies must also properly warn consumers of any toxic risks associated with their products. Any failure to protect consumers that results in accidents and injury can lead to lawsuits filed by plaintiffs and their product liability lawyer

Our Victories

The Lyon Firm aggressively, professionally, and passionately advocates for injured individuals and families against companies due to a defective product or recalled product to obtain just compensation under the law.



(Pikeville, Kentucky): Confidential settlement for Plaintiff who suffered spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia due to defectively designed seat belt. Four passengers with three-point (lap/shoulder) belts walked away from the accident, and the only passenger wearing a two-point belt (lap only) suffered a debilitating spinal cord injury. The settlement assisted with home improvements to assist in daily living. GM entered federal bankruptcy during the process and no longer manufactures two-point lap belts for vehicles.



(Hillsboro, Ohio): Confidential Settlement for the family of elderly man who was catastrophically burned while operating a propane wall heater. The burns resulted in his unfortunate death. The heater, manufactured and sourced from China, was alleged to allow the flame to reach outside the grid area in violation of ANSI standards. The Defendant resolved the case following discovery and mediation. The recovered funds were paid to the victim’s surviving spouse and children. The company no longer manufactures this type of heater.