Malm (dressers of IKEA)

2020: Sale of the rejected dressers which killed three children for 2 years

In the middle of May, 2020 two law firms submitted the class action against IKEA US Retail LLC and IKEA North America Services LLC on behalf of consumers who purchased faulty dressers. It is known that the rejected dressers of IKEA became a cause of death of three children in two years.

A claim is submitted on behalf of Diana and Diana and John Dukich who purchased IKEA Malm dresser in 2012. Affirms as the claim that IKEA sold these dressers, knowing that they are unsafe and can spontaneously overturn. Also affirms as it that IKEA did not contact the clients personally to notify them on a withdrawal of dressers of Malm from the market on June 28, 2016 and on a repeated response on November 21, 2017. Further affirms that IKEA does not comply a response condition: in the claim difficulties which claimants and other clients met with return of dressers and compensation of money are described.

IKEA sold the rejected dressers which killed three children for 2 years

The withdrawal of 2016 mentioned about 29 million dressers sold in the USA including 8 million from the Malm collection. The rejected dressers spontaneously overturned and became the reason of incidents in which since 1989 seven people died. In June, 2019 the group of protection of children reported that at least 10 children died because of the rejected dressers of IKEA, including three in the last two years.

Feldman Shepherd, Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig LLP and Francis Mailman Soumilas law firms submitted a claim on behalf of clients who purchased chests and dressers of IKEA in recent years.

Since 2000 IKEA authentically knew that chests and dressers of the company do not meet the minimum requirements to stability stated in industry standards - affirms as the claim. - By July 22, 2015 IKEA knew of a set of fatal cases and injuries which reason was a capsizing of the rejected dressers. Nevertheless, IKEA continued to sell them.

Claimants demand indemnification for "security violations of the rights of consumers, not compensation of means and inadequate attempts to notify buyers on a withdrawal of defective goods".^[1]

Notes