Are there class-action lawsuits filed against Flash Burn or its parent company?

1. What the record shows about tabletop fire‑pit litigation

Publicly available legal coverage in these search results chronicles consumer lawsuits and at least one class-action claim against sellers/manufacturers of tabletop fire pits that allegedly “flame‑jetted,” causing second‑ and third‑degree burns and prompting a product recall tied to flash‑fire risk ^[1]. The HSP Trial summary describes named suits — for example, Barnhart v. Colsen Fire Pits, LLC and related claims against sellers such as Amazon — accusing defendants of deceptive marketing and defective design that caused severe burns ^[1].

2. Where “Flash Burn” fits (or doesn’t) in the reporting

None of the documents in the provided results identify a company or brand called “Flash Burn,” nor do they link that name to a parent company or to filed class actions. The search set includes multiple summaries of burn‑related litigation and recalls ^{[1] [2] [3]}, but the precise term “Flash Burn” does not appear in those reports; therefore, available sources do not mention lawsuits filed against Flash Burn or its parent company (not found in current reporting).

3. Patterns in the types of claims reported

The cases covered in these sources follow two recurring themes: alleged product defects (unsafe design or inadequate warnings) and alleged deceptive marketing (representing devices as “safe, smokeless, and odorless” while concealing hazards). Plaintiffs in the fire‑pit litigation allege flame jetting and flash fires that produced catastrophic burns; some suits assert strict liability, negligence, and misrepresentation ^[1]. Coverage also notes recalls and CPSC actions in related incidents, signaling regulator involvement alongside private litigation ^[2].

4. Why a brand‑name search can miss ongoing litigation

Class actions and product‑liability suits often use a manufacturer’s formal corporate name rather than a consumer‑facing brand; they can also be filed against multiple defendants (manufacturer, distributor, retailer). The sources here show suits naming Colsen, Amazon, Gusar and other entities, rather than a single “Flash Burn” entity ^[1]. If Flash Burn is a trade name, a DBA, or a new/obscure brand, filings might use the company’s legal name — which could explain the absence of “Flash Burn” in these reports ^[1].

5. Competing perspectives and limits of the available reporting

Legal summaries in the supplied results present plaintiffs’ allegations in detail (e.g., severe burns, deceptive marketing) and note recalls; they do not provide defendants’ responses, settlements, or court dispositions in the excerpts provided. Some outlets (Top Class Actions, AboutLawsuits) focus on consumer claims and settlement notices rather than full judicial records, which can skew emphasis toward plaintiffs and claim deadlines ^{[4] [2]}. Available sources do not include answers from defendants or docket‑level documents for every case mentioned (not found in current reporting).

6. What you should do next if you need verification

If you want to confirm whether class actions name “Flash Burn” or its parent company, search official court dockets (PACER for federal filings, state court portals) and the CPSC recall database for exact legal or corporate names; the articles here reference specific lawsuits by manufacturer or retailer names ^{[1] [2]}. For consumer recovery opportunities, aggregator sites (Top Class Actions, ClassAction.org) list active settlements and claim deadlines but do not substitute for searching court records or contacting counsel ^{[4] [5]}.

7. Bottom line

There is active, well‑documented litigation concerning tabletop fire pits and burn injuries in the provided sources ^{[1] [2]}. However, within the documents you supplied, no filing or news item explicitly identifies a defendant called “Flash Burn” or its parent company; available sources do not mention lawsuits against Flash Burn (not found in current reporting).