Air Scrubber by Aerus Lawsuit: Fishlock v. Global Plasma Solutions

If you’re searching for an Air Scrubber by Aerus lawsuit, the active federal class action is actually against a different manufacturer: Global Plasma Solutions (GPS), sued in Delaware over how its bipolar ionization air purifiers were marketed during COVID-19. Aerus is the brand name used by franchisees and distributors of ActivePure Technologies, a related but separate company that has drawn similar criticism from health experts and journalists over COVID-era marketing, but no consumer class action naming Aerus or ActivePure as defendants appears in the record covered here. The GPS case, Fishlock v. Global Plasma Solutions, remains pending as of late 2025 with a certified class of Delaware purchasers.

Who Makes the “Air Scrubber by Aerus”

The Aerus name traces back to a 1990s buyout of Electrolux North America led by Joseph P. Urso. After the Electrolux name was sold back to its Swedish parent, the company rebranded as Aerus Holdings, LLC. In 2021, Aerus Holdings changed its name to ActivePure Technologies, LLC, with “Aerus” continuing as the brand used by franchisees and distributors. The same corporate group also acquired the network marketing firm EcoQuest, which was renamed Vollara.¹

So an “Air Scrubber by Aerus” sits inside the ActivePure corporate family. ActivePure markets devices it calls “Air Scrubbers” that it says emit “gaseous hydrogen peroxide” to “seek out and destroy viruses, mold and bacteria.”² That technology is different from the needlepoint bipolar ionization made by GPS, though both were heavily marketed to schools and businesses during the pandemic and both have faced questions about the science behind their claims.

The Active Class Action: Fishlock v. Global Plasma Solutions

Fishlock v. Global Plasma Solutions, Inc. (Case No. 23-cv-00522) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in 2023 by plaintiff Keith Fishlock.³ The complaint advanced two theories: that GPS air purifiers failed to clean the air of COVID-19 as promised, and that the devices were not subjected to independent testing as the company’s marketing suggested.

On September 22, 2025, Judge Stephanos Bibas granted GPS partial summary judgment on the COVID theory, ending those claims. The independent-testing theory survived. The court found sufficient evidence that GPS’s statements about independent verification were potentially misleading and let that claim proceed.³

In the same ruling, the court certified a statewide Delaware class covering people who bought a GPS air purifier between March 9, 2020, and June 15, 2021. The certified claims are brought under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Because the devices carry serial numbers, the court noted there is an objective way to verify class membership. A separate fraudulent misrepresentation claim was not certified for the class, because that theory requires proof that each buyer individually relied on the company’s statements.³ The case remains pending, with no public settlement discussions reported.⁴

The First GPS Case Was Dismissed

Before Fishlock, a Maryland consumer named Robert Garner filed a proposed class action against GPS in the same court on May 7, 2021 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00665).⁵ That case alleged GPS’s marketing relied on company-funded studies conducted under controlled lab conditions that were “not applicable to real world conditions,”⁶ and that the devices produced harmful byproducts including acetone, ethanol, toluene, and butyraldehyde.⁷ Garner was ultimately dismissed with prejudice on May 13, 2025, on the plaintiff’s unopposed motion. Judge Bibas denied GPS’s request for costs and fees.⁸ Discovery from Garner carried over into Fishlock, which is why the successor case moved comparatively quickly to certification.

Why Aerus and ActivePure Keep Coming Up

Aerus and ActivePure aren’t defendants in Fishlock, but they operate in the same market segment and have faced similar public scrutiny. A KFF Health News investigation found more than 2,000 schools across 44 states purchased electronic air-cleaning technology during the pandemic, often using federal COVID-19 relief money drawn from roughly $193 billion allocated for school safety upgrades.⁹

ActivePure claimed its technology was “scientifically proven to kill 99.9% of airborne coronavirus within three minutes,” a figure that came from controlled lab studies rather than real-world classroom testing.² A LinkedIn job posting for the company advertised: “Make Tons of Money with this COVID-killing Technology!!” and told prospective reps they could earn up to $900 per device, with some making six figures in a single month selling to one school district.¹⁰

Ozone has been a recurring issue. ActivePure’s marketing has claimed its devices emit “no chemicals or ozone,” but CEO Joe Urso acknowledged to reporters that some of the company’s units do produce ozone, accounting for roughly 5% of sales. Some devices carry disclaimers that they cannot be sold in California, where certain ozone-emitting air cleaners are banned.¹¹ The EPA has noted that ozone can damage lungs and worsen asthma symptoms.² A 2009 CDC assessment of a device made by ActiveTek, a subsidiary, found it emitted 116 parts per billion of ozone, a level the agency deemed too high for use in FEMA trailers.

ActivePure did receive FDA 510(k) clearance in June 2020 for one specific device, the Aerus Medical Guardian (model F170A), classified as a medical-grade ultraviolet air purifier.¹² A 510(k) clearance means the FDA found a device “substantially equivalent” to one already on the market. It is not the same as FDA approval, and it does not validate broader marketing claims about COVID-19 efficacy.¹¹

In March 2021, ActivePure announced that Dr. Deborah Birx, formerly a top White House coronavirus adviser, had joined as chief medical and science adviser.¹³ Birx said she had “full confidence” in the company’s technology after reviewing its FDA clearance records. The hire drew criticism given the company’s acknowledged ozone issues and the CDC’s cautions about the technology category.¹¹

One criminal case involving an ActivePure device is worth noting because it shows how the marketing gap was policed. A salesperson named Stephen Matthew Shumaker was convicted after mailing advertisements claiming “KILL COVID-19, CORONAVIRUS IN YOUR HOME!!” and telling an undercover agent that his ActivePure device “kills the Coronavirus Virus on the spot.” Shumaker pleaded guilty to distributing a misbranded pesticide device, was fined over $9,000, and received two years of probation. ActivePure’s CEO said Shumaker was not an authorized salesperson.¹⁴

What Regulators Say About These Devices

The EPA classifies bipolar ionization as an “emerging technology” and notes that “little research is available that evaluates it outside of lab conditions.” The agency has said the evidence for safety and effectiveness “is less documented than for more established” approaches like filtration.¹⁵ The CDC has similarly classified the technologies as “emerging,” citing an absence of “an established body of peer-reviewed evidence” demonstrating efficacy and safety under real-world conditions.²

Federal oversight of the devices themselves is thin. The EPA regulates them as “pesticide devices” because they claim to neutralize pests such as viruses, but the agency does not register them or review their safety and efficacy before they reach the market. The only requirement is that manufacturers obtain an “establishment number” for labeling. State health departments in California and New York have advised schools against purchasing ionization devices or ozone generators.¹⁴

If You Bought an Aerus or ActivePure “Air Scrubber”

Based on the record covered here, no consumer class action naming Aerus or ActivePure as a defendant is pending, so there is no active class to join over an “Air Scrubber by Aerus.” The Fishlock class covers purchasers of Global Plasma Solutions devices in Delaware between March 9, 2020, and June 15, 2021. GPS and ActivePure are different manufacturers using different underlying technologies, even though their marketing and their critics overlap.

If your device is a GPS product and you bought it in Delaware during that window, class membership will be verifiable through the serial number on the unit. If your device carries the Aerus or ActivePure brand, the relevant public record so far consists of regulatory advisories, journalistic investigations, and the criminal case against an unauthorized salesperson, rather than a certified class action you can join.

1
ActivePure. ActivePure History
2
Truth in Advertising. ActivePure Technology Air Purifiers
3
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Fishlock v. Global Plasma Solutions, Inc., No. 23-cv-00522 – Memorandum Opinion
4
Law.com Delaware Business Court Insider. Fishlock v. Global Plasma Solutions, Inc.
5
Top Class Actions. Global Plasma Solutions Inc Lies Air Purifiers Ability Cleanse Air COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit
6
NBC News. Do Air Purifiers Protect Against COVID Lawsuit Says Company Makes False Claims
7
Mother Jones. COVID School Air Purifier Lawsuit GPS Toxic
8
PACER Monitor. Garner v. Global Plasma Solutions Inc.
9
PBS NewsHour. As Schools Spend Millions on Air Purifiers Experts Warn of Overblown Claims and Harm to Children
10
CNN. Air Filter COVID Scams
11
KFF Health News. Former Trump Adviser Deborah Birx Joins Air Cleaning Industry
12
FDA. 510(k) Premarket Notification K201220
13
Dallas Innovates. ActivePure Technologies Names a Former White House Coronavirus Coordinator as a Chief Advisor
14
KFF Health News. Government Oversight of COVID Air Cleaners Leaves Gaping Holes
15
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Can Air Cleaning Devices Use Bipolar Ionization Including Portable Air Cleaners