User talk:Louis/Dragonfly Energy trade libel suit Will Prowse

Wow great job Louis

I am not sure why there isn't any discussion here so I was going to jump in here. It really looks like the "small guy" is going to win here. Kudos to the solar forum community and to Louis and his diligent work. If I was a betting man I would bet Dennis isn't going to save face and will melt the company like these batteries. What sucks are all the people/businesses who have these batteries and they are good to maybe discharge to 37.5 amps. They aren't going to have a place to make a future warranty claim or someone to call if they have a question about the product. Blairski (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Review of ULs certifications?

One thing that might be tangential to the core of this specific topic, yet potentially even more worrying is that these batteries are sold and marketed as UL Listed. If this is really the case, how can they display such major flaws during normal use? If they are indeed UL Listed as branded?

File:Screenshot 2026-06-09 075117.png

UL Markings in PDF

I can not find any UL Listing for Battle Born batteries over at https://productiq.ulprospector.com/en/search?term=Battle%20Born&page=1 The PDF also contain the following listed information:

File:Screenshot 2026-06-09 082647.png

"Recognized Specifications for BB10012

If someone with access to the physical product cn check to see if the product(s) bear any control / issue number (4–6 digits) this would be helpful, otherwise i call bull$hit on all claimed UL certifications. Might be worth pursuing in a class action lawsuit if many people were misled by false UL certification claims? --Traste (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Intertek UL Certified .png

Intertek Certified Products

Traste (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

100 AH (BB10012) vs 75 AH (BB1275)

It appears Will is testing the BB10012 (100AH), where the max charging current is listed as 50A. I have this battery and that's what my spec sheet (downloaded in 2018) has listed. The Battle Born website is also still showing the max for the BB10012 as 50A.

So either Battle Born is claiming Will tested a BB1275 (75AH) battery, which the spec may have conveniently changed from 50A to 37.5A, or they are claiming the max charging current on the BB10012 is now somehow 37.5A - even though their website still lists it at 50A.

108.76.115.238 16:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

UL Listed/Certified

I'm only doing a really cursory search, but I don't see any of the UL Listed or Certified marks on the battery (as imaged here on 8 June 2026: https://battlebornbatteries.com/products/100ah-12v-lifepo4-deep-cycle-battery ) -- I haven't fully read through the filing yet, but if they are claiming that the batteries are UL Listed, it's curious that the actual UL Listed mark doesn't appear to be on the battery (the BB10012 at least), and isn't showing up in the listing registry. I *think* they're only claiming that the batteries are made "...to UL 2054...standards", which is a different thing than claiming to be actually certified or listed (I think).

I *do* see a mark for LC -- the image is blurry, but it looks like the "c LC US" mark described here: https://labtestcert.com/marks-labels/

The ETL mark is covered here: https://www.intertek.com/product-certification-marks/etl/faq/

The "CE" mark indicates that the product is supposed to conform to European consumer standards (cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking) which I'm suspecting it does not (but I am not a European battery safety expert). Still, "...It is a criminal offence to affix a CE mark to a product that is not compliant or to offer such a product for sale."

The "UN38.3" mark has to do with the item being a lithium battery certified as being safe for transporation: https://www.intertek.com/batteries/un-38-3-testing/ Jackalgirl (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't include this in my original comment, above, but UL's site for marks is here: https://markshub.ul.com/

I'm finding this whole situation (as a non-engineer) very confusing (I feel for the poor consumer). For example, I have yet to find the "shield" UL standard mark that's on Traste's image for the battery on the "Marks Hub". The standard for Lithium batteries is not 62133; it is 62133-2 (62133-1 is the standard for alkaline batteries): https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL62133-2_1_S_20200110 but the standard's page here does not list any associated mark (like the shield mark).

I can't look at the actual standards document (I think), because if I'm reading this page correctly, I would have to purchase a copy of the standard (at a minimum of $688 and a max of $1719), which is...weird. I'm probably not finding it, or I'm looking in the wrong place, but it's just driving home for me how difficult it is for the average, not-especially-technical consumer to independently verify marks that companies slap onto their products (which, to be honest, makes me less confident in the UL mark). Jackalgirl (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I should also add that I went ahead and signed up for the UL Product IQ site, which I do not recommend considering that they ask you for a LOT of personal information up-front and won't let you sign up without doing so (so I'm not sure how long my account will last since I put a bunch of bogus info in there). I have been trying to find any other RV Lithium-Ion battery manufacturers, to try to see how their product info might compare to Dragonfly's info, and have come up empty so far. Looking at the batteries that come up on standard review sites (which may or may not be actually real) and which inevitably link to Amazon, none of the image show any batteries with any UL mark. That I have so far been able to find. Jackalgirl (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jackalgirl,

Apparently there are different UL services and lookup pages, and the ones Dragonfly state for their certifications is Intertek;

https://ramuk.intertekconnect.com/webclients/its/dlp/products.nsf/4c8700f3b75987a08525777700583333/8080c4204b23df7d86258b880059c69a?OpenDocument

The listed UL-2054 certified devices: "Lithium-Ion Battery Pack, Dragonfly Energy, Battle Born, Model Nos. DF10012, BB10012, BB10012LT, DFGC2, BBGC2, BBGC2LT, DF10012H, BB10012H, BBGC2H, DFGC2H, DFTHO10012H, DFTHOGC2H, BB10012i, BBGC2i, BB10012iH and BBGC2iH.

A representative sample of the listed devices have been tested, investigated and found to comply with the requirements of the Standard(s) for Safety Household and Commercial Batteries (UL-2054) and are identified with the ETL Listed Mark."

Could not find any validation for the other (In the specifications documents) mentioned certifications.

How they managed to pass these might be worth looking into. Traste (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

As an example: on eTrailer, I found some other RV batteries:

o Dometic's "Go Power" battery, quick-start guide here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/catsy.549/GP-LiFePO4-100+Quick+Guide.pdf - this battery doesn't show any UL marks; it just claims that it "conforms to UL 2054", which is the standard for "Household and Commercial Batteries" (https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL2054_3_S_20211117). I can't, of course, tell what this standard actually details from the source, but found this from a company in Germany: https://www.vri-gmbh.de/en/vri-knowledge-base/standards-and-regulations/ul-2054: "UL 2054 is a safety standard for portable primary (non-rechargeable) and secondary (rechargeable) batteries used as power sources in products. The standard covers both single cells and multi-cell configurations (battery packs) and defines construction requirements, test procedures and marking requirements. Unlike UL 1642, which focuses on lithium cells at the cell level, UL 2054 addresses the battery and battery pack level for all chemistries. For lithium cells used in battery packs, UL 2054 references the requirements of UL 1642 [JG: which is the safety standard for lithium batteries, both rechargeable and non-]."

o Rich Solar's "Alpha 1 Pro Lithium Battery" says it is certified "UL1973" on eTrailer's site (https://www.etrailer.com/Battery/Rich-Solar/RS74VR.html#exp-productdetails=.all-description), but on the info sheet (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0058/2769/0553/files/ALPHA_1_PRO-Specification-20240812v3.pdf) it just says it "conforms" to "UL 1973", which is "ANSI/CAN/UL Batteries for Use in Stationary and Motive Auxiliary Power Applications" (https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL1973_3_S_20220225). I can find no info for this battery at UL's "ProductIQ" site; Rich Solar lists three 3 items, which seem to be for solar panels; none of the listings include any model names for the batteries that Rich Solar is selling, so I don't think it's actually certified.

I know this is not relevant to Battle Born; however, what I'm trying to convey here is the difficulty of actually understanding and tracking this stuff down (for a person who is not an engineer and who has not had extensive training in this system).

Additional resources: I (finally!) found my way to UL's page for batteries in general, which should be a good resource: https://www.ul.com/services/battery-safety-testing. It lists the following relevant "global" UL standards:

• UL 1642, the Standard for Lithium Batteries
• UL 2054, the Standard for Household and Commercial Batteries
• UL 2056, the Standard for Power Banks
• IEC/UL 62133-2, the Standard for Secondary Cells and Batteries Containing Alkaline or Other Non-Acid Electrolytes - Safety Requirements for Portable Sealed Secondary Cells, and for Batteries Made from Them, for Use in Portable Applications - Part 2: Lithium Systems

Links are to the standards sales site.

Note that UL 1973 is not in this list, possibly because it is not "global". Lithonics claims that this is the most relevant standard for RVs and marine systems: https://lithionics.com/ul-1973-lithium-battery-safety-for-rv-marine-systems/ (but it is difficult to independently verify this claim, at least through UL directly). Jackalgirl (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Updated documentation's author's email and creation date are attached to the PDF

A funny detail I noticed is that if you view the metadata of the updated documentation PDF, it says it was created by [email protected] on 2026-06-01 20:38:36 UTC. The previous file was created on 2024-12-30 23:43:34 UTC and does not have an author attached. Je (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)