Armstrong Steel Class Action Lawsuit: Allegations, Refunds, and Response

The class action lawsuit against Armstrong Steel was filed in May 2022 on behalf of plaintiff Scott Waddell, expanded in December 2022 to include accounts from 85 customers, and alleged “systemic false marketing” by the Englewood, Colorado steel-building manufacturer. The case never reached a jury. A judge stayed it because Armstrong Steel’s contracts require disputes to go to private arbitration, and as of late 2023 arbitration proceedings were scheduled for 2027.¹²

Armstrong Steel operates formally as Atlantic Building Systems LLC doing business as Armstrong Steel Corporation, and was founded in 2007 by Ethan Chumley.³⁴

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The complaint estimated more than 100 class members and placed the amount in controversy above $5 million. It claimed Armstrong Steel took millions of dollars from buyers while often delivering nothing in return.¹

The pattern described in the case matches complaints filed elsewhere. Customers say they signed contracts and paid substantial deposits, then were told months later that the price had gone up significantly. The company’s advertised “price lock guarantee,” buyers allege, was undercut by fine print limiting the guarantee to as few as 30 days. When customers tried to cancel after learning of the increases, they say the company refused refunds and threatened additional charges.⁵

One case illustrates the pattern. Michelle Swarvar and her husband of Summerville, South Carolina, put down $22,000 in October 2021 on a roughly $95,000 “barndominium” project. Eight months later they received blueprints along with a $35,000 price increase, which Armstrong attributed to rising steel costs. The company denied their cancellation request. A representative said in February 2023 that prices had come down and new numbers were being calculated. Swarvar said she never heard back.⁵

The Better Business Bureau profile for Armstrong Steel Corp shows 28 complaints over a three-year period, with consumers frequently alleging “bait and switch” tactics, hidden fees, and post-contract price escalations. Only four were marked resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.⁶ Swarvar told reporters she belongs to a Facebook group called “Armstrong Steel Buildings Victim Group” with roughly 135 members reporting similar experiences.⁵

Why the Case Never Went to Trial

Armstrong Steel’s customer contracts contain a mandatory arbitration clause. That clause requires disputes to be resolved through private arbitration rather than in court, and it blocks collective litigation. The judge stayed the class action on that basis. Arbitration proceedings tied to the case were scheduled for 2027.²⁷

Individual arbitration can be prohibitively expensive. One customer forced into arbitration reported that the arbitrator’s fees alone exceeded $15,000.⁸ That cost structure is the practical reason a class action can be stopped even when many customers share the same complaint: each buyer must pursue the company alone, and the entry fee is high.

Refund Offers Tied to Retracting Media Complaints

While the class action was stayed, Denver7 reported that Armstrong Steel offered refunds to some customers on an unusual condition. To receive their money back, customers were asked to sign pre-written letters addressed to Denver7 that described the station’s 2022 investigative reports as “misleading representations” and asked that the stories be “removed from circulation.”²

Customer Mai Samhouri was offered more than $4,200 to sign one of the letters and refused, saying she would not “send this lie to the news.” Michelle Swarvar was offered more than $5,000 contingent on withdrawing all complaints against the company and signing a letter stating her previous public claims were false. She also refused.⁹

Consumer protection attorney Dan Vedra told Denver7 he had “never heard of a company requiring people to send letters to the media to get their money back,” calling the practice a “gag order.”² Conrad Ciccotello, director of the Reiman School of Finance at the University of Denver, described the terms as an “aggressive settlement posture” and “unusual.”⁹

An Armstrong Steel spokesperson previously stated the company “would never ask a customer to retract an honest statement.” The spokesperson did not respond to Denver7’s follow-up requests for interviews about the letters.⁹

Other Lawsuits Involving Armstrong Steel

The stayed class action is not the only litigation tied to the company’s customer relationships.

Pinky’s Aggregates (North Dakota, 2014): a breach-of-contract case filed in federal court against Atlantic Building Systems LLC. The company moved to dismiss and stay the case; a magistrate judge recommended denying both motions. The case terminated in September 2014.¹⁰
Douglas Graham (California, 2022): a 58-page complaint alleging Armstrong Steel used “delay tactics” to prevent refunds and that the company’s “locked in” price promise was a “complete farce.”¹¹
Barbara Ruth Campbell: forced into arbitration in August 2024. In June 2025, Armstrong Steel and Ethan Chumley sued Campbell for defamation. Campbell, representing herself, has described the defamation suit as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, and filed a motion for reconsideration in December 2025.¹¹

Armstrong Steel’s Response

The company has attributed customer frustrations to factors beyond its control during the COVID-19 pandemic, including escalating material and labor costs. A spokesperson said Armstrong Steel has “thousands of satisfied customers” and is working with individuals to “resolve all misunderstandings.”²

In its BBB responses, the company has pointed to signed contracts that allow for price adjustments tied to industry-wide cost pressures and steel tariffs. It has characterized many complaints as stemming from customer-initiated design changes that incur additional costs, and has described negative online reviews as “false and defamatory.”⁶

What This Means If You Are an Armstrong Steel Customer

Because the class action was stayed and pushed into arbitration, there is no active collective proceeding that will produce a settlement fund or class notice in the near term. If you have a dispute with Armstrong Steel, your contract likely requires you to arbitrate individually. Consider the fee exposure before starting: at least one customer’s arbitrator fees have exceeded $15,000.⁸

No state attorney general or consumer protection agency has publicly taken enforcement action against Armstrong Steel itself, and the company remains BBB-accredited with an A+ rating despite the volume of complaints.¹² If Armstrong Steel offers you a refund, read the release carefully. Reporting by Denver7 shows the company has previously conditioned refunds on signing letters that recant public statements to the press, which two customers refused.⁹

1
Denver7. Englewood-Based Armstrong Steel Faces Class Action Lawsuit
2
Denver7. Armstrong Steel Customers Offered Refunds With Unusual Condition
3
Inc. Armstrong Steel Company Profile
4
Casemine. Atlantic Building Systems LLC d/b/a Armstrong Steel Corporation NLRB Decision
5
WCBD News 2. Summerville Couple Blames Colorado Steel Company for Dream House Disaster
6
BBB. Armstrong Steel Corp BBB Complaints
7
Denver7. Armstrong Steel Workers Consider Forming Union to Address Working Conditions
8
Substack (armstrongsteelsuedme). Armstrong Steel and the Failed Sales
9
Denver7. More Armstrong Steel Customers Refused to Sign Settlement Agreements
10
CourtListener. Pinky’s Aggregates Inc. v. Atlantic Building Systems LLC
11
Substack (armstrongsteelsuedme). Consumer Affairs Complaints
12
BBB. Armstrong Steel Corp BBB Profile