Table of contents
- Latest Tristar Power Quick Pot Lawsuit Updates
- October 15, 2026: CPSC Warns Owners to Stop Using the Power Quick Pot
- October 17, 2025: Court Denies Tristar’s Motions in the Clary Case
- May 19, 2023: Court Dismisses Spectrum Brands from the Clary Case
- October 18, 2022: Dawn M. Clary Files Suit in Nebraska
- Who May Be Affected?
- Reported Injuries or Damages
- Recall and Regulatory Background
- Evidence to Preserve
- Filing Deadlines
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Does the CPSC Warning Cover the Power Pressure Cooker XL?
- Can Power Quick Pot Owners Combine Their Arbitration Claims?
- Where Do I Find the Model Number on a Tristar Power Quick Pot?
- Why Was Spectrum Brands Named in the Clary Lawsuit?
The lid of the Tristar Power Quick Pot 6-quart electric pressure cooker, model Y6D-36, can open while pressurized and expel hot contents. On October 15, 2026, the CPSC warned consumers to stop using it immediately.
The importer will not recall the cooker or provide a remedy. One federal injury lawsuit, Clary v. Tristar Products, is pending in Nebraska. No MDL or class action names this model.
Dawn M. Clary alleges the lid came off and burned her face, chest and arms. The court has made no finding of liability.
Latest Tristar Power Quick Pot Lawsuit Updates
October 15, 2026: CPSC Warns Owners to Stop Using the Power Quick Pot
The CPSC issued Product Safety Warning 27-030. It urges consumers to stop using 6-quart Power Quick Pot pressure cookers, model Y6D-36 [1]. Tristar Products, Inc., the importer, has refused to recall the cookers or offer a remedy.
October 17, 2025: Court Denies Tristar’s Motions in the Clary Case
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Tristar’s motion for summary judgment in Clary v. Tristar Products, Inc. It also denied Tristar’s separate motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert, Dr. John Pratt [2].
The court found Tristar had waived its right to arbitration. It said genuine issues of material fact remain to be resolved at trial.
May 19, 2023: Court Dismisses Spectrum Brands from the Clary Case
The court dismissed Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. from Clary v. Tristar Products without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction [3]. The ruling granted the company’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
October 18, 2022: Dawn M. Clary Files Suit in Nebraska
Dawn M. Clary filed Clary v. Tristar Products, Inc. in the District of Nebraska on October 18, 2022, over burns she says she suffered on July 17, 2020.
Who May Be Affected?
People who own or used a 6-quart Power Quick Pot electric pressure cooker, model Y6D-36, may be affected. That includes anyone burned when the lid opened while the cooker was pressurized and hot contents were expelled.
The cookers were sold at Walmart.com, Amazon.com, Ebay.com and other retailers nationwide from about July 2018 to November 2023. Prices ranged from $44 to $160.
The CPSC warning covers only model Y6D-36, so compare your cooker’s model number with it. Only an individual legal review can say whether a claim fits your facts.
Reported Injuries or Damages
Dawn M. Clary alleges that on July 17, 2020, she opened the steam release valve twice and rotated the lid open. She alleges the lid then blew off and the contents exploded onto her, burning her face, chest and arms.
Court filings describe second- and third-degree burns. She alleges a defect in the locking mechanisms let her open the cooker while it was pressurized.
Tristar sought summary judgment based on an arbitration clause in the owner’s manual and an admission about the cooker being depressurized.
The same CPSC warning says it has obtained 24 reports of the pressure cookers expelling hot contents unexpectedly, resulting in serious burn injuries. Reports and allegations are not findings of fault.
Recall and Regulatory Background
CPSC Product Safety Warning 27-030 is not a recall. It covers about 393,000 units of the 6-quart Power Quick Pot. Report injuries or defects to the CPSC at SaferProducts.gov.
The agency says the risk is serious injury from a burn hazard. It tells owners to dispose of the cookers and not to sell or give them away. No refund, repair or replacement is offered.
Evidence to Preserve
If you were hurt by a Tristar Power Quick Pot, keep these items and set the cooker aside, unused, before any disposal:
- The cooker with its model label, lid, gasket and float valve
- The owner’s manual and any arbitration or warranty paperwork packed with it
- The receipt, order confirmation or retailer account record
- Photographs of the cooker, the scene and the injuries
- Medical records and bills
- Names of witnesses
- Any messages with the seller or Tristar
Filing Deadlines
Filing deadlines for injury claims come from state law, and they vary with where you live and when your injury happened.
A missed deadline can end an injury claim even with strong facts, so talk with a lawyer promptly to learn which deadline may apply to your situation and how much time may remain.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the CPSC Warning Cover the Power Pressure Cooker XL?
The CPSC warning does not cover the Power Pressure Cooker XL, because it does not name that cooker or say whether the XL is safe to use. Anyone with a safety concern about another cooker can report it to the CPSC at SaferProducts.gov.
Can Power Quick Pot Owners Combine Their Arbitration Claims?
Power Quick Pot owners asking about combined arbitration claims should know that Tristar’s owner’s manual says individual arbitration cannot be joined with another arbitration. Judge Susan M. Bazis’s October 2025 ruling on arbitration in Clary is not a rule for other owners.
Where Do I Find the Model Number on a Tristar Power Quick Pot?
Check the label on the back of the unit to find the model number of your Tristar Power Quick Pot. The CPSC says Tristar Products of Altamonte Springs, Florida imported the cooker, which was made in China.
Why Was Spectrum Brands Named in the Clary Lawsuit?
Spectrum Brands Holdings was named in the Clary lawsuit because the plaintiff alleges Spectrum Brands acquired Tristar assets in February 2022. The court later dismissed it from the case without prejudice.