anufacturers of products and providers of services can be held liable for injury, damage, or economic loss suffered by a customer or a third party based on all aspects of their products and services. This includes the product or service itself, all written materials that accompany the product, including warnings and instructions, and all oral and written statements made before and after sale. As a result, manufacturers and service providers must provide a reasonably safe product, competent services, and all forms of product information that do not diminish the quality or safety of the product or service or encourage customers to take actions that result in injury, damage, or loss.

These types of lawsuits have become more common as products have become safer, resulting in fewer accidents, with plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking other potential claims regarding the sale of a product. In some cases, these claims can even be brought by an entire class of people who purchased the product.

The so-called “no-injury class action,” which is increasingly being filed by consumers, is often based on some representation by the manufacturer before sale and the unmet expectations of customers regarding issues such as performance, safety, quality, or durability. Even without provable damage, settlements have exceeded hundreds of millions of dollars, with at least one involving an alleged design defect in computer chips in Toshiba laptops exceeding $2 billion. These cases have become very common after a manufacturer recalls their product.

A jury absolved Johnson & Johnson of any liability in early June 2026, finding that they were not negligent when selling cosmetic talc products and thus presumably believing that the company’s baby powder was not likely to be the cause of the plaintiff’s ovarian cancer.

But there are many other examples of past litigation that illustrate how expansive the theories can be and how easy it is to bring legal action in many cases. Here are some notable examples.

In a case brought by a man injured when he dove into a four-foot-deep aboveground pool and struck his head on the bottom, the advertising and promotional material were key to the plaintiff’s case. There were promotional videos and print ads showing people diving into the defendant’s pool and into similar pools. Defendants argued that the plaintiff never saw these videos and ads and didn’t rely on them and that the evidence should be inadmissible. The West Virginia Supreme Court considered this issue and said:

In a case from 1990 involving Johnson & Johnson baby oil, an injury occurred when a baby swallowed the baby oil, which then got into its lungs. The mother was not alarmed because she thought that the baby oil was safe. Unfortunately, it was not safe for the lungs, and a severe injury resulted. The plaintiff’s human factors expert said that the product label, which used the term “pure and gentle,” perpetuated a belief that the product was very safe and benign in all foreseeable situations.

Another case from the early 1990s involved the Jeep CJ-7, which was advertised driving up Pikes Peak at a high rate of speed around tight turns on the mountain. These turns were called “J turns” because the marks in the mountain road looked like a “J.” The plaintiffs saw the ads and thought the roll bar would protect them if the vehicle turned over. It didn’t, and they were severely injured. The case proceeded on the theory of misrepresentation using the Jeep ads as evidence that such driving was foreseeable and intended (even though the plaintiffs drove the Jeep off the top of a road, flying almost fifty feet through the air and landing upside down). The court called the advertising an example of “intentional incitement of unlawful conduct.”

While not usually the primary focus of most product liability cases, allegations of defects in the way the product was marketed have been used by plaintiffs when necessary. Even if not specifically alleged, marketing statements have been an integral part of many claims, especially those involving failure to warn or instruct. And with the proliferation of websites and social media set up by manufacturers, product sellers, and product users, there are many more opportunities for a manufacturer to say or show or not say something that will create a problem in the event of an incident.

Or there is nothing wrong with the marketing literature, and there is just some inadequacy in the warnings or instructions, either in something they say or don’t say. Or the advertising refers to the product as “rugged” and “solid,” and that forms a basis for expectations about how strong it is and what type of misuse it can withstand. In this situation, the marketing defect claims would be part of a typical defect claim, and the plaintiff would rely on strict liability or negligence and not try to use breach of warranty, fraud, or misrepresentation, all of which can be harder theories to prove.

Manufacturers are required to provide adequate warnings and instructions to the purchaser to allow them to use the product safely and correctly. Injury, damage, or loss resulting from inadequate or incorrect information can be the basis for a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. Warnings and instructions usually accompany the product and are often included in some of the literature that the manufacturer uses to sell the product. Under these theories, any oral or written statements made by anyone in the supply chain can also be used to argue that the warnings and instructions were inadequate, confusing, or inconsistent, or that the marketing literature undermined the severity of the warnings provided with the product.

An express warranty can be created by any written or oral statement, or even by the appearance of the product. These statements include those found in sales and marketing literature, in catalogs, and on websites, as well as those communicated by salespeople.

While terms and conditions usually attempt to limit any express warranty to “defects in workmanship and material,” or only warrant that the product “conforms to the specifications in the catalog,” the purchaser will seize on any inconsistent or expansive language to argue that additional express warranties were provided and that they relied on them to buy and use the product. If express warranties are deemed to have been created, this could be a problem, as courts have said that a seller can’t generally disclaim them.

So sellers need to be aware of everything that is expressly said about the product. This includes marketing and sales literature by the manufacturer and everyone else in the supply chain, and every oral statement by anyone that communicates with the purchaser either before sale, or even after sale if they occurred before the accident or product problem.

Even advertising issued after an accident can adversely impact your defense. The problem arises if your defense is that the plaintiff was using the product unsafely. That is hard to argue if your current advertising shows a user using the product in the same way.

Since these are implied warranties, the scope of their applicability is governed by the UCC. The definition of “fitness for a particular purpose” has some relevance.

This UCC section says:

Negligent misrepresentation involves giving false information to another that causes injury or damage from actions taken by another person in reliance on that information. Negligence can occur by the person failing to exercise reasonable care in determining the accuracy of the information, or by failing to exercise reasonable care in the way in which the information is communicated.

Misrepresentation and fraud cases carry a heavy burden of proof, and that is probably why most plaintiffs in a typical product liability injury case rely more on strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty than on misrepresentation or fraud.

However, every state has some form of consumer fraud statute that can be separately used to allege fraud and deceptive trade practices. These laws are based on the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act or Uniform Consumer Sales Practices Act. The elements necessary to prove are much less than common law fraud, and a successful plaintiff is usually also entitled to treble damages and attorney’s fees.

Many state statutes don’t require actual injury or damage to recover. And some courts have allowed a nationwide class action to proceed based on an alleged violation of these state statutes.

The first rule is the old saw, “say what you mean” and “mean what you say.” Many problems in this area are caused by unclear, unsupported, and incorrect statements caused by unclear or incorrect thinking. If you want to promise that the product will perform in a certain way, then be sure it can do it. There really is no defense if a product is used as you advertised and it doesn’t work the way it should work. This may result in a disgruntled purchaser and no claim. But it could just as easily result in a warranty claim, a personal injury case, or a class action based on some misrepresentation.

Therefore, the first rule is that, if you clearly say or promise something that is material to either the purchaser’s decision to buy the product or contributes to the safe use of the product, it should be clear and correct. Lawyers who review these representations might have a difficult time commenting on these factual assertions in your advertising and marketing unless they are very knowledgeable about the product and your company. Despite that, while lawyers should not make you justify every fact, they can point out statements that seem too good to be true or suggest instances in which you should have documented substantiation for the claim.

“Puffing” is different and is legally acceptable. Puffing is not viewed as an expression of a fact but instead as an opinion about a product’s performance or attributes. As a result, “puffery” does not constitute an express warranty. So, phrases like “never lets you down” or “strong” or “finest product of its kind available today” or “premium quality” have all been deemed acceptable puffing or opinion and not a factual assertion that can be the subject of a lawsuit. This, of course, does not mean that a customer may not sue over some puffing that resulted in injury, damage, or economic loss.

Courts have identified different factors to consider when distinguishing puffing from facts. They include buyer sophistication, trade usage, whether the goods are prototypes, the presence of hedging, and the level of specificity, with specificity being the most important.

Of course, it is up to the judge or jury to determine whether they believe it is fact or opinion. And a purchaser who believes in the puffery and suffers a problem might sue you. So, you should try to anticipate how customers will react to everything you say, be it fact or opinion, and determine if they will use the product in an unsafe or incorrect way, or think it is stronger or lasts longer than it does, or buy it for an inappropriate use. If they will rely on puffing or facts and it could result in injury, damage, or loss, think how you will defend the statement and, if in doubt, soften or limit the language.

In your literature and advertising, statements that should always raise a question are absolute or clear statistical statements that can be challenged, even if they are not facts. Puffery may allow you to claim that your product has the best quality. But saying it is the “strongest” or “safest” on the market can be objectively tested and challenged by a customer or a competitor. Or a user could think the product can be subjected to forces that ultimately result in product failure and injury. In addition, while using terms like “virtually” and “almost” are very good at indicating that the product is something other than the absolute best of whatever you are selling, use them sparingly as they can unnecessarily detract from the message and make it unclear.

Let’s consider some statements that have appeared in marketing or technical literature with comments about whether or not they may be problematic.

Another area of importance for product literature is the potential for inconsistencies between safety and operational information in the marketing literature and in the instructions and warnings. While it is not necessary to place all the safety information in the marketing and advertising literature, there should not be confusing and misleading information that some customers may rely on in place of the product’s actual warnings and instructions.

In addition, inconsistencies between representations in the marketing literature and in the field by salespeople can also create problems. Salespeople can create express warranties or can inappropriately alter the well-thought-out advice in carefully crafted instructions with simple statements made during the sales process. Customers have very good memories when it comes to what the salesperson thinks is “puffing” and the customer believes is a “promise of performance.”

With advertising, below are some rules I have used in counseling manufacturers and product sellers:

Analyzing a company’s potential risk in this area is useful in establishing appropriate procedures for creating and reviewing written literature and for creating guidelines on how a product is to be sold. Doing this will help to assure customers that their products will work as promised and will help them use the product safely and correctly. This will all result in lower risk to the manufacturer and product seller.

1. King v. Kayak Manufacturing Corp., 387 S.E.2d 511, 522 (W. Va. 1989).