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? I can not find any UL Listing for Battle Born batteries over at https://productiq.ulprospector.com/en/search?term=Battle%20Born&page=1

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 batter certified as being safe for transporation: https://www.intertek.com/batteries/un-38-3-testing/ Jackalgirl (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)