Instant Brands: The Pressure Cooker Maker That Knew About a Lid-Opening Defect and Delayed Telling Consumers

Instant Brands LLC, the maker of the Instant Pot line of electric pressure cookers, was charged with violating the Consumer Product Safety Act by failing to report a known product defect to safety regulators within the required fifteen-day window after receiving information that reasonably supported a conclusion that its pressure cooker contained a defect creating a substantial product hazard — specifically, a lid-opening mechanism that could allow the lid to be removed while the cooker was still under pressure, releasing hot steam and pressurized contents that had caused scalding burns to consumers.DOCUMENTED

The Consumer Product Safety Act imposes a strict mandatory reporting obligation on manufacturers who obtain information reasonably supporting a conclusion that their product contains a defect creating a substantial product hazard. The obligation is not conditioned on the manufacturer concluding that a defect exists — it is triggered by information that reasonably supports that conclusion. The fifteen-day reporting window reflects Congress's determination that consumer safety requires rapid regulatory notification, not extended internal investigation before a company decides whether to notify the agency.REVIEWED

The Defect and the Injury Pattern

Electric pressure cookers operate by sealing a pot and using heat to generate steam pressure that cooks food more rapidly than conventional methods. The safety of the product depends on the lid remaining sealed until pressure has fully dissipated — a feature that all pressure cookers are supposed to prevent through interlock mechanisms. The defect in the Instant Brands model involved a failure mode in which the lid interlock could be defeated in certain conditions, allowing the lid to be opened or to fly open when the pot still contained pressurized steam and hot liquid. Consumers who experienced the defect reported burns from released steam and from splattered hot contents.DOCUMENTED

Consumer complaints received by Instant Brands before the mandatory reporting window — through product registration systems, customer service channels, and retail return data — described the lid-opening issue and in some cases described burns resulting from it. Regulators found that this complaint data, taken together, reasonably supported a conclusion that the product contained a defect creating a substantial product hazard — the trigger for the mandatory fifteen-day reporting obligation. The company's continuation of product sales and the absence of a regulatory notification during this period constituted the reporting violation.DOCUMENTED

The Recall Communications

When Instant Brands ultimately coordinated a recall with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, regulators reviewed the recall communications — the public notice and the direct consumer notifications — and found that the language used to describe the hazard and the potential injury consequences used phrasing that minimized the severity of the risk relative to the injury reports in the company's own complaint files. Effective recall communications require clear description of the hazard, the potential injury, and the actions consumers should take; communications that minimize or soften the risk description reduce consumers' motivation to respond to the recall and return or stop using the defective product.DOCUMENTED

Product safety advocates have long noted the incentive conflict inherent in manufacturer-drafted recall communications: a company whose product is being recalled has a business interest in minimizing the consumer perception of risk to protect the brand, while regulators' interest is in maximizing the clarity of the hazard communication to maximize consumer response. This tension is particularly significant when the recall communications are the primary means by which a large consumer product manufacturer notifies the tens of millions of consumers who own the recalled product.REVIEWED

Internal communications at Instant Brands showed awareness of the lid-opening issue and the associated burns before the mandatory reporting window closed — while consumers continued to purchase and use the affected models without warning that the safety interlock could fail.

Civil Penalty and Compliance

Instant Brands agreed to pay a civil penalty for the reporting violation — assessed based on the severity of the defect, the number of known injuries, and the duration of the delay between the triggering reporting obligation and actual notification to regulators. The penalty is designed to create financial accountability for the delay that allowed consumers to continue using a defective product without knowing about the risk, and to deter similar reporting violations by other manufacturers who might otherwise be tempted to conduct extended internal investigations before notifying the agency.DOCUMENTED

Consumers who own Instant Pot or other Instant Brands electric pressure cookers should verify whether their specific model is included in any active recall by checking the CPSC recall database at cpsc.gov. Consumers who have experienced the lid-opening defect and have not yet filed an injury report should do so through the CPSC's SaferProducts.gov reporting portal, which allows consumers to report product-related injuries and creates a public record that can inform future regulatory action. Consumers who have suffered burns from a pressure cooker defect should preserve any medical records related to the injury and consult a product liability attorney about potential claims against the manufacturer.REVIEWED

Staying Safe With Pressure Cookers

Electric pressure cooker safety depends on the lid interlock mechanism working correctly to prevent the lid from being opened while the contents are under pressure. Consumers who own electric pressure cookers should inspect the lid interlock before each use, looking for visible damage to the sealing ring, the locking mechanism, and the pressure release components, and should immediately stop using any pressure cooker that shows signs of damage to these safety components or that has been subject to a recall. The CPSC recall database at cpsc.gov allows consumers to search for their specific product by brand name and model number to check for active recall notices. Pressure cookers that are subject to an active recall should not be used until the recall remedy — which may include a free replacement lid, a full replacement unit, or a refund — has been obtained from the manufacturer. Consumers who experience any unexpected lid opening or pressurization issue with their pressure cooker should stop using the appliance immediately and report the incident to the CPSC through SaferProducts.gov.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.