|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Independent testing corroborates the failures.''' The technology outlet ''Hackaday'' reported on Prowse's controlled tests as they were published. A brand-new 100Ah unit's negative-terminal enclosure melted under an 80-amp discharge.<ref name="hackaday-melt">{{Cite web |url=https://hackaday.com/2026/01/16/battle-born-lfp-battery-melts-with-new-problem/ |title=Battle Born LFP Battery Melts With New Problem |publisher=Hackaday |date=2026-01-16 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> A unit cycled at 49 amps, well under its 100-amp rating, drove the battery-management system into repeated disconnects while the spacer melted, and the management system ''"never puts the battery into any kind of safe mode."''<ref name="hackaday-death">{{Cite web |url=https://hackaday.com/2026/03/19/studying-a-battle-born-lfp-batterys-death-under-controlled-conditions/ |title=Studying a Battle Born LFP Battery's Death Under Controlled Conditions |publisher=Hackaday |date=2026-03-19 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> A 300-amp industrial unit ''"failed violently with a cell venting and the loose BMS rattling around in the case."''<ref name="hackaday-autopsy">{{Cite web |url=https://hackaday.com/2026/02/16/performing-an-autopsy-on-15-dead-battle-born-lfp-batteries/ |title=Performing an Autopsy on 15 Dead Battle Born LFP Batteries |publisher=Hackaday |date=2026-02-16 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> An earlier RV-industry report documented a field unit whose positive-terminal connection had worked loose and was measured at more than 200 degrees Fahrenheit with arcing inside the case.<ref name="rvtravel">{{Cite web |url=https://www.rvtravel.com/troubles-battle-born-batteries-youtuber-questions-safety-1240b/ |title=Troubles with Battle Born batteries? YouTuber questions safety |publisher=RV Travel |date=2025-12-18 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> | | '''Consumers have sued over the same defect.''' On February 13, 2026, a putative consumer class action, ''Berdner v. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp.'', was filed in Sonoma County, California, and later removed to federal court.<ref name="berdner">''Berdner v. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp.'', No. 3:26-cv-03855 (N.D. Cal.), removed April 30, 2026 from Sonoma County Superior Court No. 26CV01247. [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73278488/berdner-v-dragonfly-energy-holdings-corp/ Docket via CourtListener].</ref> In Dragonfly's own words, in its annual report, the plaintiffs ''"allege that the products share a uniform design defect related to the positive terminal connection that can result in overheating, premature failure, and safety risk."''<ref name="10k2025">{{Cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1847986/000149315226013635/form10-k.htm |title=Form 10-K (fiscal year 2025), Legal Proceedings and Note on Warranty Obligations |publisher=Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. / U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |date=2026-03-30 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref><ref name="10q2026">{{Cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1847986/000149315226023103/form10-q.htm |title=Form 10-Q (quarter ended March 31, 2026), Legal Proceedings |publisher=Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. / U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |date=2026-05-14 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> That is a separate set of plaintiffs, represented by separate counsel, describing the same positive-terminal failure on the same battery line that Prowse described. |