This lawsuit, filed by the Law Office of Carey, Danis & Lowe, accuses Tricopian, Inc. (FuelRod’s parent company) and related parties of breach of contract, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and false and misleading advertising.
In layman’s terms, the named plaintiff, Tyler Veasey of Sarasota, Fla., and those who join the suit, are seeking damages and related costs stemming from FuelRod’s change from unlimited, free battery swaps to a pay-per-swap model.
According to the lawsuit, this “unlimited, free swaps” guarantee was a large part of the company’s marketing and was the primary benefit of purchasing a FuelRod. Because of the change to charge per swap, the plaintiff and those in the suit feel as though they now have a lesser-than product that they would not have purchased at all or would have rather purchased at a lower price.
According to the case filing, FuelRods fall short of the normal quality in comparison to other portable chargers: the batteries are “rated at only 2600 mAh (milli-Ampere-hours), meaning that they are unable to even deliver a single complete charge to a modern generation smartphone,” which has an internal battery “between 2700 and 3300 mAh.” As for charging speed, portable batteries are rated “between 1 and 2.4 A (amps),” with the higher number meaning a higher charging speed. FuelRods are “on the low end of that spectrum, charging a single device at 1 A.”
We reached out to FuelRod for a statement on the lawsuit, but have not heard back as of the time of this publishing.
According to James J. Rosemergy, Esq. of Carey, Danis & Lowe, if there is a positive outcome for the lawsuit, “anyone impacted will have the opportunity to participate whether they have formally joined the suit or not.”