Aeroseal Duct Sealing Lawsuit: Deceptive Marketing and Unfair Practices Haunt Homeowners
A multidistrict lawsuit (MDL) against Aeroseal, LLC, accuses the duct sealing company of misleading consumers with false claims of “permanent” seals and “100% leak elimination,” while failing to disclose limitations, charging excessive fees, and making cancellations difficult. The ongoing case resulted in a 2021 settlement requiring Aeroseal to modify marketing, improve transparency, offer refunds, and enhance customer service.
| Complete Date | Case | Citation | Court | Short Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present | Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) | Not specified | U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois | Ongoing lawsuit alleging deceptive marketing, undisclosed limitations, excessive fees, and cancellation hurdles regarding Aeroseal’s duct sealing services. |
| 2021 | Settlement reached | Not specified | U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois | Aeroseal agreed to: 1. Modify marketing materials for accuracy. 2. Increase transparency in service terms and conditions. 3. Offer refunds to dissatisfied customers. 4. Implement a new customer service program. |
Key Allegations:
- Deceptive Marketing: Aeroseal allegedly misled consumers by claiming its duct sealing services were permanent and eliminated all leaks, despite knowing these claims were false or unsubstantiated.
- Undisclosed Limitations: The lawsuit claims Aeroseal failed to disclose crucial information, such as potential seal deterioration over time and ineffectiveness on certain ductwork types.
- Excessive Fees: Plaintiffs allege Aeroseal charged unreasonably high prices for its duct sealing services, potentially taking advantage of homeowners seeking improved energy efficiency.
- Cancellation Difficulties: The lawsuit accuses Aeroseal of making it challenging for customers to cancel contracts or obtain refunds, trapping them in unwanted or ineffective services.
Outcome:
- The MDL is ongoing, with no trial date set yet.
- In 2021, Aeroseal settled with a group of plaintiffs, agreeing to the aforementioned changes in marketing, disclosures, refunds, and customer service.
Implications:
- The lawsuit raises concerns about Aeroseal’s business practices and the potential harm caused to consumers through misleading marketing and unfair terms.
- It highlights the importance of consumer protection laws and holding companies accountable for deceptive advertising and practices.
Recommendations for Consumers:
- Be wary of claims that seem too good to be true, especially regarding home improvement services.
- Scrutinize service agreements thoroughly before signing, understanding the terms and conditions, potential limitations, and cancellation policies.
- Compare prices and services offered by different duct sealing companies before making a decision.
- Ask detailed questions about the sealing process, potential limitations, and expected outcomes.
- Document all interactions and agreements with the company in writing for future reference.
Conclusion:
The Aeroseal lawsuit serves as a cautionary tale for homeowners considering duct sealing services. By understanding the allegations, settlement details, and consumer recommendations, individuals can make informed decisions and protect themselves from potentially misleading or unfair practices. Remember, due diligence is crucial when choosing any contractor for home improvement projects.
