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.[1] 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."[2][3] 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.
- ↑ 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. Docket via CourtListener.
- ↑ "Form 10-K (fiscal year 2025), Legal Proceedings and Note on Warranty Obligations". Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. / U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2026-03-30. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
- ↑ "Form 10-Q (quarter ended March 31, 2026), Legal Proceedings". Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. / U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2026-05-14. Retrieved 2026-06-06.