More than 50 people suffered second- and third-degree burns to their faces and bodies after the lids on SharkNinja Foodi pressure cookers opened while the devices were still pressurized. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has now recalled approximately 1,846,400 units sold across the country, making it one of the largest kitchen appliance recalls in recent years. With 106 burn-injury reports and 26 lawsuits already filed, the recall raises sharp questions about how long a known defect can persist before regulators and manufacturers act.
Why 1.8 million Foodi pressure cookers are being pulled from kitchens
The core defect is straightforward and dangerous: the pressure-cooking lid can be opened during use while the cooker is still pressurized. When that happens, superheated steam and liquid escape violently, striking anyone standing nearby. The CPSC recall notice identifies 106 burn-injury reports, with more than 50 of those involving second- or third-degree burns to the face and body. These are not minor kitchen accidents. Second-degree burns cause blistering and lasting pain; third-degree burns destroy skin layers entirely and often require surgical treatment.
The recall covers multiple Foodi Multi-Function Pressure Cooker models sold at major retailers from 2018 through 2024. That six-year sales window means the affected units have been in American homes for years, cooking meals while carrying a defect that could send users to a burn unit. The sheer volume of 1,846,400 recalled units signals that millions of households need to check their kitchen counters and cabinets.
A key question is whether design changes to the lid’s locking or pressure-release mechanism during that production span contributed to the injury pattern. Pressure cookers rely on interlocking systems that are supposed to prevent the lid from turning or lifting while internal pressure remains elevated. If SharkNinja altered valve or latch components across different model years, the injury data could cluster around specific production runs. The CPSC recall notice does not break down the 106 reports by model or manufacture date, leaving that correlation untested in public records.
CPSC findings, lawsuits, and the scale of reported injuries
The agency’s recall announcement is the authoritative record. It names SharkNinja as the responsible company, specifies the hazard as a lid that can open under pressure, and tallies the human cost: 106 reports of burn injuries, more than 50 of which resulted in second- or third-degree burns, and 26 lawsuits filed against the manufacturer. Those 26 lawsuits represent individual legal claims serious enough to reach court filings, a threshold that typically reflects significant medical expenses, lost wages, or lasting disfigurement.
Consumers who own affected units are instructed to stop using the pressure-cooking function immediately and contact SharkNinja for a free replacement lid. The company is providing a redesigned lid intended to prevent the failure mode. That remedy itself carries an implicit admission: the original lid design allowed users to open the cooker while it was still under pressure, and a different lid can fix the problem.
The CPSC inspector general oversees the agency’s own performance in identifying and acting on consumer safety hazards. With injuries spanning a product line sold over six years, the timeline between the first reported incidents and the formal recall will likely face scrutiny. Federal law requires manufacturers to report potential product defects to the CPSC promptly, and the agency is supposed to move quickly once a pattern emerges. Whether that happened here, or whether bureaucratic delays extended the period during which consumers were exposed to the defect, is a question the OIG’s oversight function is designed to answer.
Gaps in the public record and what owners should do now
Several pieces of information that would clarify the full scope of this recall are not yet public. The CPSC has not released raw complaint data showing when the first injuries were reported, which specific Foodi models generated the most incidents, or how the defect rate breaks down across production years. Without that data, it is impossible to determine whether the problem worsened after a particular design revision or whether it was present from the product’s initial 2018 release.
SharkNinja has not published any engineering failure analysis explaining why the lid’s locking mechanism allowed premature opening. Pressure cooker safety standards, maintained by organizations like Underwriters Laboratories, require redundant locking features precisely to prevent this type of failure. Whether the Foodi models met those standards at the time of sale, or whether the standards themselves have gaps, is not addressed in the recall notice.
The 26 lawsuits could eventually produce discovery documents, internal emails, and engineering reports that fill in those blanks. Court filings in product liability cases often reveal what a manufacturer knew about a defect and when it knew it. For now, the public record contains only the CPSC’s summary figures.
Anyone who owns a Foodi Multi-Function Pressure Cooker sold between 2018 and 2024 should stop using the pressure-cooking lid right away. The first step is to locate the model and series number printed on the appliance, usually on a label attached to the base or underside. Owners can then compare those numbers to the list of affected models in the CPSC recall notice to confirm whether their unit is covered. If it is, they should follow the instructions in the recall to register for a free replacement lid and should avoid using the pressure function until the new lid arrives and is installed according to the manufacturer’s directions.
Even for consumers whose units are not listed, the recall is a reminder to treat all pressure cookers with caution. Users should never attempt to force open a lid, should ensure that pressure has fully released before unlocking, and should regularly inspect seals, valves, and locking tabs for wear or damage. If a cooker ever appears to depressurize unusually slowly, leaks steam around the lid, or allows the lid to jiggle or turn while in use, it should be unplugged and taken out of service until the manufacturer can provide guidance.
What this recall signals about product safety oversight
The Foodi recall underscores how modern kitchen appliances, marketed as convenient multi-function devices, also concentrate risk when safety systems fail. A defect in a toaster might char bread; a defect in a pressure cooker can send boiling liquid into a user’s face. When nearly 1.9 million units share that risk, regulators and manufacturers are expected to respond before dozens of people suffer severe burns.
At the same time, the limited detail in the public recall record shows how much of the story remains hidden. Without a clear timeline of injury reports or technical explanations of the failure mode, consumers and safety advocates cannot easily evaluate whether this recall came as quickly as it should have or whether similar hazards might exist in other pressure-cooking products. The eventual outcome of the 26 lawsuits, and any findings or recommendations from the CPSC’s oversight arm, may provide a fuller picture of how this defect persisted for years and what changes are needed to prevent the next wave of preventable kitchen injuries.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
