Supreme Court Allows Class Action Lawsuit Over Hoverboard Age Warnings

Israel's Supreme Court has authorized a class action lawsuit concerning the import of hoverboards, the two-wheeled self-balancing personal transporters. Justice Ofer Grosskopf rejected appeals against a lower court's decision, allowing the case to proceed despite significant procedural flaws by the plaintiffs and their legal representative. The lawsuit alleges that importers misled consumers by concealing that hoverboards are not intended for children under 16, marketing them instead as suitable for ages as young as eight.

Initially, four companies were listed as defendants, but the District Court approved the lawsuit only against Rosen & Mintz. The company argued it followed the guidelines of the Standards Institution and the Ministry of Economy, and sought to bring the Standards Institution in as a third party. The court permitted this third-party claim only against the Standards Institution.

The District Court had found that three of the four original plaintiffs acted in bad faith, purchasing hoverboards solely to file the suit while aware of the age restrictions. However, it approved one plaintiff, Shlomo Bracha, to proceed as the representative plaintiff, represented by attorney Hagai Friedler, despite Friedler's alleged involvement in attempting to conceal the other plaintiffs' actions. Justice Grosskopf upheld Bracha's standing, noting his claims and affidavit appeared authentic and that he may have been misled about the minimum age.

Grosskopf also addressed the Standards Institution's argument that its role was limited to technical checks and not age suitability. The court found this claim problematic, as the institution did address age concerns, justifying the third-party claim. Regarding Rosen & Mintz's defense of acting under legal authorization from the Standards Institution, Grosskopf stated that disputes over the institution's role and the nature of its hoverboard inspection need to be resolved within the main proceedings. He concluded that it is difficult to accept the company's claim of acting under legal authorization at this stage.

Given the passage of time since the events, approximately a decade ago, finding an alternative plaintiff will be challenging. The addition of attorney David Gidanski to the legal team is expected to partially rectify the procedural deficiencies. Ultimately, Grosskopf ruled that dismissing a case solely due to the conduct of a plaintiff or their attorney is reserved for exceptional circumstances, and the public interest in adjudicating the lawsuit's merits outweighs these issues.