Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time...
 

Let me guess. The US government just did a $5 million study to test them . . .after they purchased 500,000 of them for $10,000 each.

Neat:

"These smoke hoods are one-time use respiratory devices ...Consumers should stop using the smoke hood devices immediately and contact Brookdale for a prorated refund. "

A prorated refund on a one-time only device? :)

((I))

The credit is based on the time remaining until the device's expiration date.

So let me get this straight - had you used one, you may have died of CO poisoning, but because you didn't, you only get some of your money back ?

I do love differences in consumer law in differing countries.

Yeah - the same thing struck me when I saw the refund was prorated. It seems to me that buyers paid for a device that is 100% effective until its expiration date, so if it <i>hasn't</i> expired, they should get 100% of their money back.

Of course, the company is just trying to mitigate the disaster. You can't really blame them. But imagine what it would have cost them if a family of five had used the hoods and succumbed to CO poisoning!

Does anyone else wonder how a product whose primary function is escape from fire wasn't engineered to filter CO? Someone's resume is gonna have a big Oshit on it!

What gives with this product? I thought everything made outside the US was perfect?