Dreamland Baby Lawsuit: CPSC Suit, Class Actions & $90M Case

The Dreamland Baby lawsuit landscape has three distinct fronts: two consumer class actions in California federal court accusing the company of falsely marketing its weighted sleep sacks and swaddles as safe, a suit Dreamland itself brought against the Consumer Product Safety Commission over public warnings that drove major retailers to pull its products, and a separate $90 million damages case against the United States. As of the most recent rulings, the class actions remain unresolved, most of Dreamland’s claims against the CPSC were dismissed in September 2025 with one narrow claim surviving, and the damages case is still pending.

What Parents Are Alleging in the Class Actions

Two class actions were filed in 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Monsch v. Dreamland Baby Company (Case No. 3:24-cv-02996) was filed by Victoria Monsch on May 17, 2024.¹ Fehrenbach v. Dreamland Baby Co. (Case No. 3:24-cv-03406) followed on June 6, 2024, filed by Megan Fehrenbach.²

Both complaints make the same core claim: that Dreamland marketed its weighted sleep products as safe, effective, and consistent with American Academy of Pediatrics safe sleep guidelines, when the AAP, CDC, NIH, and CPSC have all warned that weighted infant sleep products are unsafe. The Monsch complaint calls the safety claims “patently false” and alleges the products are “wholly useless.”¹

The products named across the two suits are the Dream Weighted Sleep Sack, Dream Weighted Sleep Swaddle, Dream Weighted Transition Swaddle, Bamboo Weighted Transition Swaddle, and Weighted Toddler Blanket.² Monsch proposes a nationwide class of all purchasers, plus multistate and California subclasses, and explicitly excludes anyone bringing personal injury or wrongful death claims. The theories include breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection statutes.¹

Neither case has settled. There is no claims process for consumers to file into, and no class has been certified in the public record.³

Why Dreamland Sued the CPSC

Represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Dreamland filed Dreamland Baby Co. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission (No. 1:24-cv-3277) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 19, 2024. The defendants included the CPSC, former Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr., HHS, the CDC, and the NIH.⁴

The trigger was a sequence of agency actions in 2023 and 2024. In fall 2023, Trumka proposed that the CPSC pursue a mandatory safety standard for weighted infant sleep products. The full commission rejected the proposal 3-1, with then-Chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric saying there was not enough research to start rulemaking.⁵ In April 2024, Trumka issued a public statement titled “Beware: Weighted Infant Swaddles and Blankets are Unsafe for Sleep; Retailers Should Consider Stopping Sales” and sent letters to major retailers.⁶

Target, Walmart, Nordstrom, Babylist, and Amazon dropped the products.⁷ CEO Tara Williams said the company lost 60 percent of its business overnight.⁸

Dreamland’s complaint stacked several theories: an Administrative Procedure Act challenge arguing the warnings were arbitrary and capricious and issued without proper process, a claim that the CPSC exceeded its statutory authority, ultra vires claims against Trumka and the other agencies, a constitutional challenge to the for-cause removal protection covering CPSC commissioners, and a due process claim based on alleged bias by Trumka.⁹

What the Court Ruled in September 2025

On September 26, 2025, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras dismissed most of Dreamland’s claims and let one proceed.¹⁰

The surviving claim is the APA argument that the CPSC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by publishing and refusing to retract its safe sleep guidance. Judge Contreras said he could not decide whether the agency’s actions were “reasonable and reasonably explained” without seeing the administrative record. The opinion flagged ambiguity over whether the CPSC relied on its own internal data — 167 reported incidents and five fatalities — or simply deferred to CDC and NIH guidance without independent analysis.⁹

The dismissed claims went out for different reasons. On statutory authority, the court found the CPSC has broad power to disseminate safety information and that Dreamland did not identify a specific procedure the agency violated. The ultra vires claims against HHS, NIH, CDC, and Trumka failed the “high bar” of showing a clear violation of a mandatory duty. The constitutional claims were declared moot: by the ruling date, commissioners Boyle, Hoehn-Saric, and Trumka had already been removed after the Supreme Court’s July 2025 stay in Trump v. Boyle allowed the president to fire them, so there was no live target for prospective relief.⁹

In February 2026, the NCLA moved for summary judgment on the surviving claim, asking the court to order the CPSC to retract its online warning. The motion argues the administrative record shows the agency “blindly relied” on CDC and NIH recommendations that themselves traced back to a private advocacy organization rather than independent CPSC investigation.⁵

The $90 Million Damages Case

On August 14, 2025, Dreamland opened a second front against the federal government. Dreamland Baby Co. v. The United States of America (Case No. 8:25-cv-01798) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, assigned to Judge Douglas F. McCormick.¹¹ The company seeks $90 million, alleging Trumka’s public statements ruined its reputation and sales and left it in “financial and reputational peril.”¹⁰ The case is pending.

The Safety Question Underneath the Suits

Every one of these cases turns on the same disputed factual question: are weighted infant sleep products safe?

The AAP updated its safe sleep guidelines in 2022 to warn against weighted swaddles, blankets, and sleep sacks, stating there is “no evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature evaluating the safety of weighted sleep products on typical, healthy infants” in unmonitored home settings. Medical concerns cited include compression of an infant’s flexible ribcage, interference with the ability to roll out of a dangerous position, and suppression of the startle reflex that is thought to protect against low oxygen episodes linked to SIDS.¹² The CPSC has said it is aware of five infant deaths associated with weighted sleep products between 2022 and 2024, involving babies ranging from one month to six months old, with investigations ongoing.¹³

Williams has publicly disputed the warnings, calling the agencies’ concerns “rooted in theory not fact” and arguing that no peer-reviewed study has shown Dreamland’s specific products to be unsafe.¹⁴ She has said the company has sold more than one million sleep sacks since 2019 “with no reported adverse events attributed to our gently weighted sleep solutions,” and pointed to a 2020 clinical study on weighted blankets used with NICU infants that she says “actually demonstrated safety, not risk.”¹⁵ Critics have noted that study involved 30-minute supervised sessions on 16 infants in a hospital, not overnight unsupervised home use.¹² After a request from Senator Richard Blumenthal, Dreamland also removed from its website a list of hospitals it had previously claimed as partners for NICU use of its weighted sacks.

If You Bought a Dreamland Product

There is no CPSC recall or ban on Dreamland Baby’s weighted products, and no mandatory safety standard exists for the category.¹⁶ The CPSC’s current online guidance simply says, “Don’t use weighted blankets or weighted swaddles.”¹⁷

Because the consumer class actions have not settled and no class has been certified, there is no filing window or claims form for purchasers at this stage. The Monsch complaint’s proposed nationwide class includes all purchasers of the named weighted products but excludes anyone pursuing a personal injury or wrongful death claim, which are handled through separate individual litigation rather than the class case.¹

1
ClassAction.org. Monsch v. Dreamland Baby Company Complaint
2
Top Class Actions. Dreamland Class Action Alleges Children’s Weighted Sleep Products Unsafe
3
ClassAction.org. Dreamland Baby Weighted Sleep Sacks, Swaddles, Blankets Are Falsely Advertised, Class Action Says
4
NCLA. Dreamland Baby Co. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission
5
NCLA. NCLA Asks D.C. Court to Stop CPSC From Making Baseless Claims on Weighted Sleep Sacks for Babies
6
CPSC. Beware: Weighted Infant Swaddles and Blankets Are Unsafe for Sleep
7
CPSC. Target, Walmart, Nordstrom, and Babylist Commit to Stop Selling Weighted Infant Products
8
Inc. Why Your Favorite Baby Products Keep Getting Pulled From Shelves
9
Justia. Dreamland Baby Co. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Memorandum Opinion
10
Reuters. CPSC Largely Escapes Baby Product Maker’s Lawsuit Over Safety Claims
11
Law360. Dreamland Baby Co. v. The United States of America
12
Consumer Reports. Weighted Baby Blankets, Sleep Sacks, Swaddles Are Not Safe
13
WLIW. U.S. Lawmakers Urge Banning Weighted Infant Sleepwear Over Safety Concerns
14
InvestigateTV. Defective Baby Product Industry Insiders Questioned Over Involvement With Setting Own Safety Standards
15
Sleepopolis. Dreamland Sues Over Weighted Blankets Controversy
16
CBS News. Safety Concerns Arise Over Weighted Baby Sleeping Products After CPSC Warning
17
CPSC. Safe Sleep