SharkNinja recalls nearly 2 million pressure cookers due to burn injuries

CNN - May 2nd, 2025

SharkNinja has announced a recall of approximately 1.8 million pressure cookers due to a design flaw that allows the lid to be opened during use, posing a risk of burn injuries. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has reported 106 incidents, with more than 50 cases involving second- or third-degree burns. The affected models, part of the Ninja Foodi OP300 Series, were sold at major retailers including Walmart, Costco, Sam’s Club, Amazon, and Target. Consumers are advised to stop using the pressure-cooking function immediately and contact SharkNinja for a free replacement lid.

This recall highlights significant safety concerns within the household appliance industry, emphasizing the importance of rigorous product testing and consumer safety protocols. The legal implications are underscored by over 26 lawsuits filed against SharkNinja. While SharkNinja maintains that customer safety is their top priority, this incident could impact consumer trust and brand reputation. The recall also extends to Canada, affecting approximately 184,240 units, and reflects broader issues related to cross-border product safety standards.

Consumer Protection Lawsuits Product Safety Us Consumer Product Safety Commission Shark Ninja Pressure Cooker Recall Burn Injuries

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-structured and accurate report on the recall of SharkNinja pressure cookers, effectively informing the public about a significant safety issue. It scores high in accuracy, timeliness, and public interest, ensuring that readers receive relevant and reliable information. However, the article could improve in balance and engagement by incorporating perspectives from affected consumers and safety experts, as well as providing more context about the recall process. Overall, it serves as a valuable resource for consumers but could be enhanced by a broader range of viewpoints and deeper analysis of the implications for consumer safety and corporate accountability.

Accuracy

The news story is largely accurate, detailing the recall of 1.8 million pressure cookers by SharkNinja, a fact confirmed by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. It accurately identifies the model numbers and retail locations where the products were sold. The specific hazard, which involves the lid opening during use, is also correctly described. The number of reported injuries and lawsuits aligns with official sources. However, minor discrepancies exist, such as the lack of detail on the replacement process, which could benefit from additional verification.

Balance

The article presents the recall from the perspective of the consumers affected and the company's response, providing a balanced view of the issue. However, it lacks input from consumer safety experts or affected individuals, which could provide a more comprehensive view of the recall's impact. The company's statement is included, but the perspective of regulatory bodies like the CPSC is not directly quoted, which may slightly skew the balance towards the company's narrative.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey the essential facts of the recall, making it accessible to a general audience. It logically presents the information, starting with the recall announcement and detailing the risks and company response. However, it could improve by providing more context about the implications of the recall for consumers and the company's future actions.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources such as the US Consumer Product Safety Commission and SharkNinja's official statements. These are authoritative sources for the information provided, lending credibility to the report. However, the article would benefit from additional independent sources, such as consumer safety experts or legal analysts, to provide a broader context and verify the claims independently.

Transparency

The article clearly states its sources, such as the US Consumer Product Safety Commission and SharkNinja, providing transparency about where the information originates. However, it does not delve into the methodology behind the recall decision or the criteria used by the CPSC to determine the need for a recall. More transparency about these processes would enhance the reader's understanding of the situation.