The lumber liquidators are facing a lawsuit over the release of toxic levels of formaldehyde from their laminate flooring. The company stopped selling the Chinese-made flooring in January 2015 when it learned that the chemicals it used contained too much formaldehyde. The lawsuit states that the company lied to the public and investors about the dangers of the wood flooring and failed to stop the sale of the flooring. The lawsuit also claims that the firm hid the problem from consumers and made false statements to investors.
The lawsuit alleges that Lumber Liquidators failed to warn consumers that their flooring contains high levels of formaldehyde and failed to properly label it.
The company also sold flooring that had been mislabeled and did not meet the strict emission standards set by California. The company’s actions were not remedied and the lawsuit remains ongoing. But it’s not too late to fix the problem.
The Lumber Liquidators agreed to settle the lawsuit and pay $33 million in penalties. The companies were found to have misled investors and made false statements in public statements in response to a 60 Minutes report. The program showed an undercover video of the company’s suppliers demonstrating that they didn’t comply with formaldehyde emissions standards. However, the companies have ceased selling laminate flooring that contains formaldehyde, and have terminated any employees responsible for the misdeed.
Lumber Liquidators continue to appeal the court’s decision and the terms of the settlement.
In March of this year, they settled the lawsuit with the plaintiffs for $23 million. However, they’ve decided to settle on a separate matter. They have halted selling laminate flooring from China and terminated all of their employees. Ultimately, they have agreed to pay $760 million in settlements to 760,000 customers.
The Lumber Liquidators lawsuit claims the company misled investors by not releasing formaldehyde emissions. It also claims that the company misled investors by making false statements about product testing and regulatory compliance. The companies’ response to the 60 Minutes investigation has been the key to this lawsuit. However, the underlying legal issues are still pending. The class action is still pending, so stay tuned for updates on the case.
Although the lawsuit filed against Lumber Liquidators does not mention the toxicity of formaldehyde in their products, it is still being litigated in court.
It’s unclear how the company will settle the case, but a recent settlement reached $36 million. That’s an incredible deal for homeowners, and it will make a huge impact on the industry. But Lumber Liquidators must take the case seriously to protect their future customers.
Lumber Liquidators has denied the allegations and is now settling with customers. The company has apologized and settled with customers after 60 Minutes exposed the dangerous levels of formaldehyde in their laminate flooring. While it has acted responsibly to settle the claims, the company hasn’t fully addressed the formaldehyde issue. It’s unclear whether the company is liable for the damages it caused to consumers.
The Lumber Liquidators have admitted to misleading investors about the risks of formaldehyde in their flooring. In response to a 60 Minutes report, the company claimed that the footage was made by employees in the factory. They also claimed that the materials were compliant with formaldehyde emission standards. The company has since stopped selling the laminate flooring, but the lawsuit continues.
In response to the lawsuit, the company has paid $33 million in penalties.
The court found that the company misled investors about the dangers of formaldehyde and made false statements in public statements. In response to the 60 Minutes report, the retailer misleads investors by making false claims. Despite the damage to the environment, the Lumber Liquidators settlement has helped the company get back on its feet.
The lawsuit claims that the Lumber Liquidators failed to disclose the risks of formaldehyde from their flooring components. The lawsuit also alleges that the company’s products are not compliant with regulations in California. It claims that the manufacturer should be liable for any violations of the Lacy Act. If it did, it should not have been responsible for the product’s toxicity.