Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 1 of 60 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`Roland Tellis (SBN 186269)
`rtellis@baronbudd.com
`Sterling Cluff (SBN 267142)
`scluff@baronbudd.com
`David Fernandes (SBN 280944)
`dfernandes@baronbudd.com
`BARON & BUDD, P.C.
`15910 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1600
`Encino, CA 91436
`Telephone: 818.839.2333
`
`ALEXANDER E. WOLF (SBN 299775)
`awolf@milberg.com
`MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
`PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
`280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
`Beverly Hills, California 90212
`Telephone: 872.365.7060
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`JARETT HAWKINS, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No.: 8:23-cv-02038
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SHIMANO NORTH AMERICA
`BICYCLE, INC., SHIMANO NORTH
`AMERICA HOLDING, INC., and
`SPECIALIZED BICYCLE
`COMPONENTS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 2 of 60 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff Jarett Hawkins (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others
`similarly situated, brings this class action against Defendants Shimano North America
`Bicycle Inc. Shimano North America Holding Inc. (together, “Shimano”), and
`Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc. (individually, “Specialized” and together with
`Shimano, “Defendants”), and alleges on personal knowledge, investigation of his
`counsel, and information and belief as follows.
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and
`5.
`other similarly situated persons who purchased the Shimano 11-Speed Bonded
`Hollowtech II Road Crankset Models: Dura-Ace FC-9000, Dura-Ace FC-R9100P
`Dura-Ace FC-R9100, Ultegra FC-R8000, and Ultegra FC-6800, and all other
`substantially similar cranksets manufactured, distributed or sold by Shimano with
`the same defect and subject to the September 21, 2023 recall (the “Cranksets”) and
`bicycles manufactured by Specialized that come equipped with defective Cranksets
`(the “Class Bicycles”), for personal use and not for resale.
`In a bicycle, the crankset connects the chain and the pedal and allows
`6.
`the bicyclists to propel the bicycle forward by applying the necessary force with their
`legs. Without a functioning crankset, a bicycle cannot be pedaled. An example of
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 3 of 60 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`
`
`one of the defective Cranksets from Shimano’s website is included below.
`
`In this case, the Cranksets suffer the same design defect in that the
`7.
`crank parts detach at the bind during ordinary use, resulting in a significantly higher
`crash and injury risk for consumers.
`As a result of the defect, bicyclists that use the Class Bicycles and
`8.
`Cranksets cannot safely ride their bicycles because the crankset may break and/or
`detach while the operator of the bicycle is riding, causing the operator to fall off the
`bicycle or lose control and crash, leading to serious injury or death. Such a defect is
`extraordinarily dangerous and has rendered the Class Bicycles and Cranksets
`unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose, as demonstrated in the example
`picture below.
`
`
`
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 4 of 60 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The safety concerns presented by the breakage of a crankset are
`9.
`particularly pronounced among modern road bicycles that are predominantly ridden
`on roads, at high speed, near motor vehicles, while operators’ feet are clipped into
`the pedals attached to the end of the crank arms because these operators are riding
`nearest to dangerous traffic and moving at significant speeds.
`Defendants ignored this prevalent defect for approximately a decade—
`10.
`releasing some of the affected Cranksets as early as 2012—and only recently issued
`a recall on September 21, 20231. The defect and serious dangers posed thereby were
`
`
`1 https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2023/Shimano-Recalls-Cranksets-for-Bicycles-Due-to-Crash-
`Hazard (last visited 10/20/2023).
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 5 of 60 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`
`
`not disclosed by Defendants to consumers until the recall, following years of denials
`by Shimano.
`Shimano’s recall is wholly inadequate. Defendants only offer free
`11.
`replacement Cranksets to consumers whose cranksets show signs of binding
`separation or delamination during an inspection and requires the third-party dealers
`to install the replacement. As will Plaintiff alleges more fully below, the procedure
`for this recall is inadequate. Bike repair persons are not engineers, the existence of a
`defect is not the same as manifestation of a defect, and pictures of broken Cranksets
`do not always readily reveal signs of binding separation or delamination prior to
`breaking.
`The severe danger the Class Bicycles and Cranksets pose to
`12.
`consumers—rendering bicycles uncontrollable during regular operation on
`sidewalks, roads, and or mountains trails—makes refusing to replace or refund all
`the dangerous Cranksets is wholly inadequate.
`the recall to be arbitrary and
`Further, Defendants designed
`13.
`inconvenient to limit Defendants’ replacement costs. Consumers who do not show
`enough separation or delamination are left without remedy, and consumers who
`qualify for a free replacement are left with long waiting lines unable to use their
`bicycles. Until they can qualify for a repair under Shimano’s plan, consumers are
`left without usable bicycles and/or are left in the position of having to decide whether
`to continue riding a dangerous bicycle, waiting on the Cranksets to separate and
`potentially cause a crash.
`As a result of the concealed Crankset defect, Plaintiff and other
`14.
`members of the proposed Classes (defined below) (collectively, the “Classes”) were
`harmed and suffered various forms of quantifiable, economic injury.
`The Cranksets being subject to an inadequately narrow recall have
`15.
`been rendered them entirely worthless or, at the very least, have substantially
`diminished their value.
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 6 of 60 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Classes also suffered out-of-pocket
`16.
`and/or loss-of-use expenses and costs.
`Therefore, Plaintiff brings this suit to halt Defendants’ unlawful sales
`17.
`and marketing of the Class Bicycles and Cranksets and for economic damages
`sustained as a result. Given the large quantities of the Class Bicycles and Cranksets
`sold in California and nationwide, this class action is the proper vehicle for
`addressing Defendants’ misconduct and attaining needed relief for those affected.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Jarett Hawkins was at all times relevant to this matter a resident
`18.
`of the State of California domiciled in Solana Beach, in the county of San Diego.
`Plaintiff is a citizen of California.
`Defendant Shimano North America Bicycle Inc. is a California
`19.
`corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California.
`Defendant Shimano North America Holding Inc. is a California
`20.
`corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California.
`Defendant Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc. is a Delaware
`21.
`corporation with its principal place of business in Morgan Hill, California.
`At all relevant times hereto, Defendants designed, built, manufactured,
`22.
`marketed, distributed, promoted, marketed, and sold the defective Class Bicycles
`and Cranksets nationwide, including in California.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
`23.
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), because (i)
`there are 100 or more class members, (ii) there is an aggregate amount in controversy
`exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and (iii) there is minimal
`diversity because at least one member of the class and Defendants are citizens of
`different states.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 18
`24.
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 7 of 60 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`U.S.C. § 1965 because Defendants maintain minimum contacts with this state, and
`intentionally avail themselves of the laws of the United States and this state, by
`conducting a substantial amount of business in California. Defendants continuously
`and systematically place goods into the stream of commerce for distribution in
`California, sell the Class Bicycles and Cranksets to individuals in California, and
`engage in wholesale of the Class Bicycles and Cranksets to retailers they know will
`resell the Class Bicycles and Cranksets at retail to individuals in California. Because
`of Defendants’ conduct as alleged in this lawsuit, the Class Bicycles and Cranksets
`were sold to and purchased by individuals in this State.
`For these same reasons, venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28
`25.
`U.S.C. § 1391. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
`herein occurred in this judicial district.
`COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`A. The Defect
`26. Shimano manufactures, distributes, and sells components, technologies,
`services, and gears for bicycles. Among the various bicycle components that the
`Shimano sells, are the defective Cranksets, as previously identified, Dura-Ace FC-
`9000, Dura-Ace FC-R9100P Dura-Ace FC-R9100, Ultegra FC-R8000, and Ultegra
`FC-6800. Further, the affected Cranksets can be identified by the two-letter
`production code imprinted on the crank arm. The defective Crankset production
`codes are: KF, KG, KH, KI, KJ, KK, KL, LA, LB, LC, LD, LE, LF, LG, LH, LI, LJ,
`LK, LL, MA, MB, MC, MD, ME, MF, MG, MH, MI, MJ, MK, ML, NA, NB, NC,
`ND, NE, NF, NG, NH, NI, NJ, NK, NL, OA, OB, OC, OD, OE, OF, OG, OH, OI,
`OJ, OK, OL, PA, PB, PC, PD, PE, PF, PG, PH, PI, PJ, PK, PL, QA, QB, QC, QD,
`QE, QF, QG, QH, QI, QJ, QK, QL, RA, RB, RC, RD, RE, and RF.2
`27. Approximately 680,000 Cranksets were sold at prices ranging between
`
`
`2 Shimano Recalls Cranksets for Bicycles Due to Crash Hazard | CPSC.gov (last visited
`10/20/2023)
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 8 of 60 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`$270 and $1,500 each throughout the United States between January 2012 and
`August 2023.
`28. The Cranksets, as defined above, all suffer from an identical design
`defect. As a result of the defect, the Cranksets are unreasonably likely to break,
`separate, de-bond, or delaminate during normal use. When the defective Crankset
`separates or delaminates the bicyclist loses the ability to properly balance, operate,
`and propel the bicycle, substantially increasing the risks of a crash and serious injury.
`29. While the Crankset models may differ in weight, price, and certain
`specs, the Cranksets all share the same dangerously defective bind, weld, bond, or
`material that causes the Cranksets to break, separate, de-bond or delaminate and fail.
`The defect at issue here involves a vital component of a bicycle, and it
`30.
`is unsafe to operate a bicycle with a Crankset that may fail and cause an operator to
`lose control. A sturdy and reliable crankset is absolutely critical to the safe operation
`of a bicycle because bicyclists apply a range of their weight—from full weight while
`standing, to partial weight while pedaling in the seated position—to the crankset, and
`base their balance on their ability to apply weight to the crankset consistently and
`reliably allowing the bicycle to remain upright and operational. Therefore,
`consumers cannot safely ride their bicycles, including the Class Bicycles, with the
`defective Cranksets.
`31. The industry shows, including Defendants themselves, that alternative,
`feasible designs have been available for decades because only some of Defendants’
`crankset models fall prey to the inadequately designed weld, bond, bind, or material
`used in the Class Bicycles and Cranksets. The inadequately designed Class Bicycles
`and Cranksets that are prone to separation and breaking are therefore unsafe to use.
`32. Additionally, consumers reasonably expect that cranksets will be able
`to hold their weight and allow the consumer to apply ordinary force to propel the
`bicycle. Consumers would not, did not, and could not anticipate that a crankset
`specifically designed to bear the weight of the bicyclist applying normal force to
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 9 of 60 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`propel the bicycle forward is designed in a manner that causes it to separate and/or
`break, and fail under normal riding.
`33. This defect renders the Class Bicycles and Cranksets unfit for the
`ordinary purpose for which they were and are intended, which is to be a weight
`bearing component designed to withstand the force required to propel a bicycle
`forward.
`34. This defect is present in all the Class Bicycles and Cranksets, as
`identified in this case, at the time of sale because it is inherent to the design of the
`Class Bicycles and Cranksets and is present when the Class Bicycles and Cranksets
`come off the assembly line.
`35. Had Plaintiff, Class Members, and the consuming public known that the
`Class Bicycles and Cranksets were defectively designed and were substantially
`certain to separate and fail when subjected to the ordinary force required to propel a
`bicycle forward, they would not have purchased the Class Bicycles and Cranksets at
`all, or paid substantially less for them.
`36. Specialized manufactures, distributes, and sells assembled bicycles, and
`bicycle components. Among the various bicycles sold by Specialized, are the Class
`Bicycles equipped with defective Cranksets, as identified in a statement by
`Specialized, including: “Specialized road bikes [that] were fitted as standard with
`11-speed Shimano Ultegra & Dura-Ace crank sets” on “some models of Tarmac,
`Roubaix, Venge, Ruby, Amira, Aethos & Shiv” bicycles.3
`37. Each of the Class Bicycles contained a defective Crankset and,
`therefore, suffered from the same defects that plague all of the defective Cranksets.
`
`3 Shimano Voluntary Recall: 11-Speed Bonded HOLLOWTECH II Road Cranksets Inspection
`and Replacement Campaign, Specialized, available at
`https://support.specialized.com/home/en/shimano-voluntary-recall-11-speed-bonded-hollowtech-
`ii-road-cranksets-inspection-and-replacement-
`campaign#:~:text=and%20Replacement%20Campaign-
`,Shimano%20Voluntary%20Recall%3A%2011%2DSpeed%20Bonded%20HOLLOWTECH%20I
`I%20Road%20Cranksets,HOLLOWTECH%20II%20Road%20Crank%20sets, last visited on
`October 30, 2023.
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 10 of 60 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`The Safety Risks to Users Associated with the Use of the Class
`Bicycles and Cranksets Caused Economic Harm
`38. As a result of the safety risks to consumers associated with normal use
`of the Class Bicycles and Cranksets, together with Defendants’ concealment and
`omission of these risks from the date they were first reported to Defendants or
`discovered by Defendants, the Class Bicycles and Cranksets are subject to an
`inadequately narrow recall and have been rendered entirely worthless or, at the very
`least, have substantially diminished in value.
`39. Material safety defects, like the defect at issue, affect the market price
`of a product. Consumers are not willing to overlook such dangers and would instead
`purchase a comparable product manufactured by another company without a recent
`history of wide-scale product recalls.
`The Defendants’ recent recall instructs consumers to stop using the
`40.
`Class Bicycles and Cranksets and subject to a visual inspection of a local bike shop.
`This demonstrates that at the very least, the value of the Class Bicycles and Cranksets
`has substantially diminished because you should not use them unless they pass
`inspection—and arguably should not use them at all because even with constant
`monitoring for separation, failure during use is a severe hazard to the bicyclist and
`potentially the public at large.
`If users choose to discontinue using the Class Bicycles and Cranksets
`41.
`for fear of injury, they must pay for another expensive replacement product.
`Plaintiff and Class members did not receive the benefit of their bargain.
`42.
`They bargained for Class Bicycles and Cranksets that were fit for their ordinary
`purpose and did not have any safety defect substantially likely to manifest and which
`could cause severe physical injury. By actively concealing and omitting this
`information from consumers, including at the point of sale, Plaintiff and Class
`members overpaid for the Class Bicycles and Cranksets.
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 11 of 60 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Plaintiffs and Class members suffered “price premium” damages in the
`43.
`amount they overpaid for the Class Bicycles and Cranksets as a result of the hidden
`safety defect.
`Plaintiff and members of the Classes also suffered out-of-pocket
`44.
`and/or loss-of-use expenses and costs.
`C. Defendants Knew About the Defect Yet Provided No Warning
`Defendants must have been aware of the Class Bicycles and Cranksets
`45.
`at least several years prior to issuing the most recent recall on September 21, 2023,
`because there have been complaints, reviews, and publications regarding this defect
`for close to a decade.
`This is not the first time Shimano released and sold cranksets with a
`46.
`similar, if not identical, defect. In 1997, Defendants issued a recall of approximately
`2.5 million cranksets manufactured between mid-1994 and mid-1995 because the
`recalled cranksets were prone to breaking. As of 1997, Defendants acknowledged
`receiving at least 630 reports in North America of cranksets breaking while in use—
`resulting in at least 22 rider injuries, including fractured bones and lacerations.
`Similarly, Defendants must have been aware, early on, of the
`47.
`numerous complaints regarding the Class Bicycles and Cranksets in this case
`separating, failing, and causing injury. However, this time Defendants ignored such
`complaints and did not act until years after they began receiving complaints about
`Defective Inflators.
`On September 1, 2016, cyclist and blogger John Carlin was riding
`48.
`approximately 20 miles per hour near his home in Roanoke, Virginia, on a trial called
`the “Brandy Loop.” While attempting to ride up a smallish hill, the crankset on the
`right-hand side of his bicycle snapped in two resulting in a crash. As Mr. Carlin
`describes it:
`
`With absolutely no warning there was a loud crack. My foot hit the
`pavement, the bike dove into a ditch about a foot deep and I landed
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 12 of 60 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`
`
`between a utility pole and street sign that are little more than shoulder-
`width apart.
`49. Mr. Carlin reported the issue to his local bicycle shop who contacted
`Shimano. When the shop called Shimano, the rep on the other end of the phone cut
`them off and said he already knew the story, indicating that Shimano had already
`been made aware of the Crankset defect and well before 2016.4
`Three years later, in 2019, the same blogger reported on his Dura-Ace
`50.
`FC-9000 crankset failing in the same way. The blogger, again, attached pictures and
`discussed how Defendants has been well aware since the last incident of the Class
`Bicycles and Cranksets failing and is doing nothing about it.5
`Other consumers of the Cranksets were so outraged, that they felt it
`51.
`necessary to create an Instagram account titled “thanksshimano” documenting
`Defendants’ Cranksets. Since its inception, the “thanksshimano” account has posted
`over 500 times, with most of the posts being follower submissions of the Cranksets
`separating and failing. Some example posts are pictured below. The account was
`opened in November 2017 and contains hundreds of posts between 2018 and 2023
`depicting defective Cranksets that had broken and/or failed.
`
`
`4 Failure shimano ultegra crank causes serious bicycle accident (carlinthecyclist.com) (last visited
`10/20/2023)
`5 Shimano Dura-Ace FC-9000 Crank Fail • Carlin the Cyclist (last visited 10/20/2023)
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 13 of 60 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fg=:
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`:£
`
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 14 of 60 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Notably, these pictures do not show obvious signs of corrosion, de-
`52.
`bonding or delamination, and do not appear to give any sign or notice to the operator
`that they are about to break or need to be replaced.
`Similarly, multiple news outlets have covered the issue. Road.cc
`53.
`covered this problem stating that readers have reached out to them as early as 2018
`with reports of the Cranksets failing and that their investigation revealed that the
`issue has been prevalent and known to Defendants even earlier than that. Road.cc
`further discussed how they have covered this issue in multiple publications
`throughout and the years and how Defendants has denied a design problem in the
`past and stated that it is “investigating” the problem in 2021.6
`Engineering blogs, like Hambini, scrutinized the Defendants design of
`54.
`the defective Crankset and reported about the Shimano’s attempts to deflect and deny
`the apparent design problem.7
`Similar stories abound on the internet and in the Consumer Protection
`55.
`Safety Commission’s (“CPSC”) data clearinghouse. Examples of complaints made
`to CPSC including the following:
`SUDDEN CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF A SHIMANO
`ULTEGRA COMPACT CRANK THAT WAS USED ON MY 2007
`CERVELO R3 BICYCLE. THIS WAS THE 50/34 ULTEGRA 10
`SPD CRANK THAT CAME WITH THE BIKE WHEN I BOUGHT
`IT IN AUGUST 2007. I HAVE HAD NO PRIOR ISSUES WITH THE
`CRANK AND HAD BOTTOM BRACKET REPLACED TWICE,
`MOST RECENTLY 15 MONTHS EARLIER. AS YOU CAN SEE IT
`FAILED DRAMATICALLY. ON 12 SEPTEMBER 2015 I WAS
`RIDING UPHILL ON HWY 39 AT ABOUT 8-10 MPH IN THE SAN
`GABRIEL MTNS AND GOT TO A SWITCHBACK I HAD BEEN
`ON COUNTLESS TIMES IN THE PAST (AND EARLIER IN THE
`SAME DAY) WHEN OUT OF THE SADDLE THE CRANK
`SUDDENLY FAILED WITH ZERO WARNING AND I TUMBLED
`
`
`6 Investigating Shimano’s snapping cranksets: What happened, unanswered questions and an
`engineer's report | road.cc (last visited 10/20/2023)
`7 Shimano Crankset Failures: An Engineering Analysis - Hambini Engineering (last visited
`10/20/2023)
`
`14
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 15 of 60 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`INTO THE ROAD. I AM 6’1” AND WEIGH 188LBS. THE BIKE
`HAS NEVER BEEN IN ANY SORT OF MAJOR ACCIDENT AND
`THAT PEDAL HAS NEVER BEEN HIT HARD IN ANY KIND OF
`MISHAP. NO ONE OTHER THAN ME AND SHOP PERSONNEL
`HAVE EVER RIDDEN THE BIKE. OTHER THAN SCRAPES I
`WAS UNHURT. I INCLUDE PHOTOS WITH THE CRANKSET IF
`A SUBSEQUENT PAGE OF THE REPORT WILL ALLOW ME TO
`DO SO.8
`THE SHIMANO ULTEGRA 6800 CRANKS ON MY ROAD BIKE
`FAILED. THE CRANK CRACKED AT THE SPINDLE. THIS
`CREATED A POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS SITUATION AS IF
`THERE WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE, WHICH WAS SURE TO
`EVENTUALLY HAPPEN, A CRASH WAS LIKELY TO OCCUR.
`THE CRACK WAS PICKED UP BY MY LOCAL BIKE SHOP.
`THERE SEEM TO BE A LOT OF REPORTS OF FAILURES OF
`THIS PARTICULAR CRANK. IT SHOULD NOT FAIL DURING
`NORMAL USAGE. MY BIKE WAS NEVER CRASHED OR
`DAMAGED. THESE CRANKS SHOULD BE RECALLED AND
`REPLACED. THEY ARE NOT SAFE. THERE WAS NO
`"INCIDENT" AS I DID NOT CRASH.9
`BICYCLE: SHIMANO DURA ACE 10 SPEED CRANK ARM
`BROKE IN HALF. ITS LUCKY I WAS NOT INJURED OR
`KILLED.10
`SHIMANO FC-7800 DURA ACE CRANK ARM ON HIGH-END
`BICYCLE SNAPPED WITHOUT WARNING.11
`A FRIEND OF MINE WAS INJURED WHEN THE CRANKARM
`OF HIS BIKE SNAPPED IN HALF AS HE WAS ACCELERATING,
`AND AS IT TURNS OUT, THESE TYPES OF CRANKS HAVE
`SUCH A NOTORIOUS REPUTATION THAT A WHOLE
`[REDACTED] ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MADE CATALOGUING
`THE FAILURES OF SHIMANO'S CRANKARMS. [REDACTED].12
`
`56.
`
`On information and belief, Shimano likely possess records regarding
`
`
`8 Incident ID 20150919-69EAB-2147428241, September 2015 (all caps included in the original).
`9 Incident ID 20190807-A0F41-2147379394, August 2019 (all caps included in the original).
`10 Incident ID 2021.215-FR798-2147365875, February 2021 (all caps included in the original).
`11 Incident ID 20210619-2246D-2147363413, June 2021 (all caps in original).
`12 Incident ID 20220415-66EFB-2147356847, April 2022 (all caps in original).
`15
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 16 of 60 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`thousands of complaints about Cranksets and the defect dating back to at least 2012.
`Not only does the number of complaints and the publicity of such
`57.
`through media, blogs, news outlets, and various other channels, as well as
`Defendants’ own statements, comments, and responses to such outlets, demonstrate
`that Defendants must have been keenly aware of this defect for at least many years,
`but the substance of the complaints shows that consumers were surprised, frustrated,
`and disappointed with the poor build quality of the Class Bicycles and Cranksets,
`and would not have purchased the Class Bicycles and Cranksets had the defect been
`disclosed.
`Defendants would have seen the above-described complaints and new
`58.
`coverage because Online Reputation Management (ORM) is now a standard business
`practice among major companies and entails monitoring consumer forums, social
`media, and other sources on the internet where consumers can review or comment
`on products. ORM involves the monitoring of the reputation of an individual or a
`brand on the internet, addressing content, which is potentially damaging to it, and
`using customer feedback to try to solve problems before they damage the
`individual’s or brand’s reputation. Many companies offer ORM consulting services
`for businesses.
`Like most companies, Defendants care about their reputation and
`59.
`regularly monitors online customer reviews and media because they provide valuable
`data regarding quality control issues, customer satisfaction, and marketing analytics.
`Poor reviews and negative media attention would be particularly attention-grabbing
`for Defendants’ management because negative publicity and poor reviews is often
`the result of material problems. As such, Defendants’ management knew about the
`above-referenced consumer complaints, which is further evidenced by their
`documented responses to bike shops, blogs, and other outlets. In fact, Defendants
`stated in their September 21, 2023, recall that they are aware of at least 4,519
`incidents of the Cranksets separating, with many of these incidents resulting in
`16
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 17 of 60 Page ID #:17
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`injuries such as bone fractures, joint displacement, and lacerations.
`Additionally, Defendants are experienced
`in designing and
`60.
`manufacturing bicycle parts such as the Class Bicycles and Cranksets. As an
`experienced manufacturer, Defendants conduct pre-sale and post-sale safety testing
`to verify the safety risks posed to users of the Class Bicycles and Cranksets.
`Defendants would have conducted additional post-sale testing upon being notified of
`the earliest above-described complaint. On information and belief, Defendants
`discovered this safety risk during testing both before and after publicly releasing the
`Class Bicycles and Cranksets for sale.
`In sum, Defendants have known of the defect and its associated
`61.
`manifestations and damage through (1) records of customer complaints, (2) media,
`(3) direct communications with bike shops and customers seeking to make
`Defendants aware of the problem, and (4) pre- and post-sale testing, but made no
`substantive design modifications to eliminate the defect, and did not recall the
`Cranksets until September 21, 2023, despite knowing the defect existed almost a
`decade prior.
`D. Defendants Failed to Disclose the Crankset Defect to Consumers at
`the Point of Sale
`Consumers cannot reasonably know about or discover the dangerous
`62.
`nature of the Class Bicycles and Cranksets at the point of sale. Consumers expect the
`Class Bicycles and Cranksets to remain intact throughout regular and ordinary use.
`63. Consumers reasonably expect that Defendants—who have far greater
`expertise in safety and designing the Class Bicycles and Cranksets—would not
`market an unsafe product. For lay consumers inexperienced in crankset design, the
`Class Bicycles and Cranksets are not obviously unsafe in appearance and do not
`obviously disclose the existence of the Crankset defect.
`64. Further, Shimano claims the Cranksets are durable and reliable.
`65. Shimano has published numerous marketing materials on their website
`17
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 18 of 60 Page ID #:18
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`and through third-party media outlets emphasizing the Cranksets’ performance,
`strength, reliability and durability13:
`• “the best balance of stiffness, strength, weight and rotating
`performance;”
`• “In addition, taking the crankset as a whole, the total balance of
`crankarm rigidity, axle stiffness, bearing position and others is essential.
`Indeed, the crankset is designed by careful consideration of the total
`balance of those elements to prevent breakage;”
`• “high precision sealing in the bearing area to increase durability;”
`• “the best choice in terms of performance, strength, and longevity;”
`• “we realize innovative new products excelling both in high precision
`and in durability by the metal-processing technologies we have
`developed for many years;” and
`• “Maintains high rigidity and reduces weight.”
`66. These representations are misleading because the Cranksets are
`defectively designed and result in an unreasonable risk of physical injury during
`ordinary use. Defendants omitted this information on packaging, labeling, and
`advertising to benefit their bottom line.
`67. Defendants also actively concealed the defect