Skip to main content
Back
Mar 30, 2026

VapCigs 1.9 Million Settlement Over Exploding E Cig Battery Burn Injuries

Settlement Image

The VapCigs 1.9 Million Settlement Over Exploding E Cig Battery Burn Injuries settlement, with individual payouts of TBD to eligible claimants who you experienced an e-cigarette battery or charger exploding/combusting unexpectedly. The filing deadline has not yet been announced. Proof of purchase is required.

Deadline
Pending

Deadline: No deadline specified

Total Settlement Amount
TBD

Total amount allocated for all claims

Individual Payout Range
TBD

Estimated amount per eligible claim

Proof of Purchase
Required

Provide documentation showing (1) the specific e-cigarette/battery/charger involved (receipts, order confirmations, serial/model numbers, photos of the device), (2) evidence of the explosion/fire and resulting damage (photos, incident reports, witness statements), and (3) records of losses (medical records and bills for burns/injuries, wage loss documentation, repair/replacement estimates for damaged property). If available, preserve the damaged device/components for inspection.

Settlement Summary

E-cigarettes don’t just raise health concerns about nicotine and chemical exposure—they also rely on lithium‑ion batteries, the same high‑energy cells used in phones and laptops, which can overheat and “thermal runaway” if a battery, charger, or design is defective. When that happens, the device can vent flames or explode with little warning, and the injuries are often severe burns. The VapCigs case highlighted this risk after Jennifer Ries alleged her charging e‑cigarette erupted in her car, igniting her clothing and seat and leaving her with second‑degree burns on her legs, buttocks, and hand. The lawsuit was filed against VapCigs and other companies involved in selling and distributing the product, arguing the device failed basic consumer safety expectations and that users were not adequately warned about known dangers. A Riverside County jury’s $1.9 million award in 2015 mattered because it signaled that juries may treat battery incidents as foreseeable product‑safety failures—especially where warnings, instructions, and quality control are alleged to be lacking—creating pressure for safer designs, better labeling, and stronger oversight across the supply chain. Similar cases and enforcement actions reinforce the broader pattern: a 2018 jury awarded $2 million over an exploding e‑cig battery bought online, while regulators have fined vaping companies for deceptive “healthier than cigarettes” advertising claims, underscoring that the industry faces scrutiny not only for injury risks but also for how products are marketed under consumer‑protection laws. In the bigger regulatory context, lithium‑ion hazards are a long-running consumer-product issue, and U.S. safety frameworks such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s reporting and recall system can come into play when companies learn of serious defects, as seen in past battery-fire controversies in other industries. The comparison to large settlements and penalties involving fire-prone appliances and overheating laptop batteries shows how product-liability law often converges on the same themes—design defects, inadequate warnings, and delayed reporting—regardless of whether the product is a vape device, refrigerator, or computer, and it helps explain why vaping battery cases have continued to draw lawsuits and significant verdicts when injuries are catastrophic.

Entities Involved

Morgan & Morgan
ClassAction.com
eBay
RL Sales
VapCigs
Cartons 2 Go
Tobacco Expo
Jennifer Ries
Mike Morgan
Vapex
Sinless Vapor
Ozn Web
Utah Department of Commerce
Law360
Norcold RV refrigerators
Jeffery Etter
Susan Etter
Riverside County Superior Court
Hewlett-Packard (HP)
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Forbes
Los Angeles Times

Related Topics

e-cigarette explosion lawsuit
vape battery exploded compensation
lithium-ion battery burn injury claim
e-cig charger caught fire lawsuit
vape pen exploded burns settlement
eBay e-cig battery explosion case
VapCigs explosion lawsuit
RL Sales e-cig battery verdict
second degree burns vape battery
product liability vape battery
defective lithium battery injury lawyer
failure to warn e-cigarette lawsuit
false advertising e-cig fines Utah
exploding vape battery legal help
ClassAction.com e-cigarette burns

Eligibility Requirements

  • You experienced an e-cigarette battery or charger exploding/combusting unexpectedly
  • The incident caused physical injury (e.g., burns, dental injuries) and/or property damage (e.g., vehicle, clothing, personal items)
  • The e-cigarette, battery, charger, or related component was purchased/used during the general timeframe discussed (approximately 2014–2018)
  • You can identify the product and/or seller (e.g., retailer, online marketplace, brand) involved
  • Your claim is brought within the applicable statute of limitations for your state/jurisdiction

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest settlement updates and news.

Important Notice About Filing Claims

Submitting false information in a settlement claim is considered perjury and will result in your claim being rejected. Fraudulent claims harm legitimate class members and may result in legal consequences.

If you are unsure about your eligibility for this settlement, please visit the official settlement administrator’s website using the link provided above. Review the eligibility criteria carefully before submitting a claim.

Class Action Champion is an independent information resource and is not affiliated with any settlement administrator, law firm, or court. We provide settlement information as a service to help connect eligible class members with legitimate settlements.

Related Settlements

Absolute Dental Group $3.3 Million Settlement for 2025 Data Breach Losses

Absolute Dental Group LLC agreed to pay a $3.3 million class action settlement over a potential 2025 data breach affecting consumers’ personal information. The incident occurred between Feb. 19, 2025 and March 5, 2025, when unauthorized access may have exposed data. Eligible U.S. residents who received notice from Absolute Dental about the incident may claim up to $5,000 for documented losses and may also receive a pro rata cash payment, with certain California residents eligible for an enhanced amount.

Travelers PIP Settlement for New Jersey Claims Up to 70 or More for Deductible Reductions

A class action settlement totaling at least the net settlement fund (with attorneys’ fees up to $275,000 and service awards of $7,500) resolves allegations that Travelers and St. Paul improperly reduced New Jersey PIP coverage limits by counting deductibles and copayments, causing some insureds to receive less than the PIP benefits available. Eligible policyholders (and certain heirs/representatives) who received final PIP payments between April 14, 2017 and April 1, 2023 that were within $3,000 of their policy limit—but not the full limit—may receive an automatic $70 and possibly additional compensation.

MUBI $1.6 Million Settlement for California Auto-Renewal Without Notice

California subscribers of the MUBI streaming service may be eligible for a $1.6 million class action settlement over alleged auto-renewal charges without adequate notice or proper consent. The claims cover sign-ups beginning April 1, 2021 and auto-renewals occurring through May 31, 2025, as described in Cesar Cejudo v. MUBI, Inc. To be eligible, claimants must have been California residents whose subscription renewed at least once and who did not receive a full refund of renewal charges.

MetLife $1.2 Million Settlement for Underinsured Motorist Coverage Offsets in New Mexico

Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (MetLife) agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle claims that it misrepresented or failed to disclose underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage limits and used improper offsets. The issue relates to New Mexico auto insurance activity between Oct. 1, 2010, and Jan. 31, 2022. Eligible class members include qualifying policyholders who had UM/UIM claim offsets by at-fault payments or who purchased UM/UIM coverage in that period.