Skip to content Skip to navigation

Rust-Oleum Restore Products Peeling, Chipping Missouri Class Action

Hand Peeling Paint off Deck

This class action brings suit against Rust-Oleum Corporation for certain of its Restore products. The complaint alleges that the company made false advertising claims or concealed and omitted material facts, in respect to its Rust-Oleum Deck Start Wood Primer, Restore 2X One Coat Solid Stain, and Restore 4X Deck Coat.

The class for this action is all persons who bought Restore products in Missouri between October 17, 2014 and the present.

Plaintiff Allen Garrard bought all three products—the Deck Start Primer, Restore 2X, and Restore 4X—to use on the deck of his home, which cost him over $500.

Rust-Oleum says Deck Start “simplifies prep & promotes topcoat adhesion.” It promotes its Restore 2X as being “2X thicker than ordinary paint” and requiring “only one coat for total coverage.” Restore 2X also supposedly has “NeverWet Properties Inside” and provides “superior water repellency” with “algae and mildew resistant coating.” It claims Restore 4X is “4X thicker than ordinary paint” and a “premium ultra solid coating.” Restore 4X  also purportedly “[r]efinishes weathered surfaces” and “[c]onceals hairline cracks” for “superior coverage” and “long lasting protection.”

Garrard applied the products to his deck, finishing in September 2017.

The complaint alleges that by May 2018, “the Restore Products already were detaching from several spots on the deck.” Garrard repaired those spots. However, the complaint says, by January 2019—less than two years after the application of the products—they were “detaching, peeling, and flaking in several locations on the floor and railings of the deck.” 

The complaint contain six pictures of the paint, saying, “Indeed, several of the photos reveal moisture, bubbling, and even plant-life growing from where [Garrard] applied the Restore Products.” The growing things appear to be small orange blooms directly attached to the surfaces.

The complaint alleges that the company’s representations are false because the products

  • “Separate, crack, peel, bubble, flake, pucker, chip, and otherwise prematurely fail shortly after application;
  • “Are not superior to ordinary deck paint or stain;
  • “Cannot withstand harsh weather;
  • “Do not provide ‘superior water repellency’; and
  • “Do not contain special ‘algae and mildew resistant coating.’”

The complaint alleges that Rust-Oleum knew or should have known of the defects in the products: “Indeed, Rust-Oleum previously defended litigation concerning several offerings within its Restore family of products.” Although the products in this case are different, the problems with them are similar to those with the previous products. 

The complaint quotes online consumer postings complaining of the products.

The causes of action include violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment.

Article Type: 

Free Case Evaluation

Fill out the information for a FREE and prompt case evaluation.

About you

Additional Information

Latest Tweets

Join Us on Facebook