The Evenflo Revolve 360 lawsuit is a proposed class action filed in October 2025 in Massachusetts federal court, alleging that Evenflo sold Revolve360 Slim car seats with a headrest foam choking hazard and that the tape-seal repair kit offered through the recall does not fix the problem. The case has since been consolidated with three related suits, and Evenflo has moved to dismiss.
What the Class Action Alleges
Plaintiff Debbie Barraza filed Barraza v. Evenflo Company, Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-12914) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 6, 2025. The complaint alleges Evenflo knew or should have known that children could reach behind the headrest cushion and dislodge pieces of foam, and that the company failed to disclose that risk to buyers.1ClassAction.org. Evenflo Lawsuit Alleges Recalled Car Seats Pose Choking Hazard
The heart of the suit is the remedy. The complaint calls the additional tape seal that Evenflo mails to registered owners “wholly inadequate” and argues it does not restore the value consumers expected when they paid roughly $295 to $450 for the seat.2ClassAction.org. Barraza v. Evenflo Complaint Legal claims include breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law.3Top Class Actions. Evenflo Recall Sparks Class Action Involving 324,000 Car Seats
Who Is Covered and What the Suit Seeks
The proposed class covers everyone in the United States who bought an affected Revolve360 Slim for personal use, with a California subclass. One line matters for parents whose child was hurt: the class definition excludes anyone alleging personal bodily injury.2ClassAction.org. Barraza v. Evenflo Complaint Injury claims would need to be brought separately.
The plaintiffs are asking for compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and a jury trial.2ClassAction.org. Barraza v. Evenflo Complaint
Current Status of the Case
By February 2026, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton had consolidated Barraza with three related lawsuits filed in the same court (case numbers 1:25-cv-12993, 1:25-cv-13564, and 1:25-cv-13605). Five named plaintiffs — Debbie Barraza, Callie Kandel, Kathleen Heath, Samantha Toney, and Monica Smith — filed a consolidated amended complaint in March 2026. Evenflo filed a motion to dismiss in April 2026, and as of mid-2026 that motion is pending. No trial date or settlement has been announced.4Justia. Barraza v. Evenflo Docket
The Recall Behind the Lawsuit
The lawsuit is built on a voluntary recall Evenflo launched in September 2025. NHTSA Campaign No. 25C010 covers about 324,997 Revolve360 Slim and Gold Revolve360 Slim car seats made between December 2022 and December 2024.5NHTSA. NHTSA Recall Report 25C010 The defect: the protective tape that originally covered the headrest foam does not extend far enough, so children can pick at and dislodge foam pieces and inhale or swallow them. Evenflo says the foam is non-toxic and that the issue does not affect crash performance, and it has reported no known injuries.6Evenflo. Revolve360 Slim Recall
The recall covers 20 model variations, all with model numbers starting with 3681. Revolve360, Revolve360 Extend, and Revolve360 Slim models starting with CS2601 or 3682 are not affected.7Evenflo. Revolve360 Slim Recall The remedy is a free repair kit containing an additional tape seal to cover the entire bottom edge of the headrest. Evenflo says the seat is safe to continue using as long as the foam remains intact and inaccessible, and advises parents to stop using the seat if a child has already reached the foam.6Evenflo. Revolve360 Slim Recall Newer production models use a redesigned headrest to prevent the issue entirely.5NHTSA. NHTSA Recall Report 25C010
A Separate NHTSA Investigation Into Base Separation
The class action is not the only cloud over the Revolve 360. On January 5, 2024, NHTSA opened an investigation into the Revolve360, Revolve360 Extend, and Revolve360 Slim, including the Gold editions, after reports that the shell holding the child and harness had separated from the detachable base during at least six vehicle crashes.8What to Expect. Evenflo Revolve360 Car Seat Investigation NHTSA’s database lists 37 consumer complaints, including reports of symmetrical fraying of lower hip straps and detachment of headrest foam components.9NHTSA. Evenflo Revolve360 Complaints
The investigation asks whether the seat complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213, which under NHTSA’s interpretation requires a convertible car seat to meet all safety requirements without relying on a separate base.10NHTSA. FMVSS 213 Detachable Base Interpretation Evenflo has disputed that interpretation. The investigation remains open, and no recall has been ordered on the base-separation issue in the United States. It is a separate matter from the Barraza class action, which concerns the headrest foam.
Canadian Recall Is a Different Issue
Canadian owners should be aware of a distinct recall. Transport Canada Recall No. 2025-372, issued in July 2025, covers 18,813 Revolve360 Slim seats sold in Canada that failed a chest-acceleration crash test when installed rear-facing with a vehicle seat belt and tether.11Transport Canada. Evenflo Revolve360 Slim Car Seats Non-Compliance Chest Acceleration U.S. models are not affected by the Canadian recall, and the Canadian recall is not part of the Barraza lawsuit.12The Car Seat Pros. Evenflo Revolve360 Slim Recall Canada
What Owners Should Do Now
If you own a Revolve360 Slim, check the model number on the seat’s label. If it starts with 3681, the U.S. choking-hazard recall applies, and Evenflo will send a free tape-seal repair kit to registered owners.6Evenflo. Revolve360 Slim Recall Accepting a repair kit does not, on its own, remove you from the proposed class. Because the class is not yet certified and Evenflo’s motion to dismiss is pending, there is nothing to claim from the lawsuit at this stage; a court-approved notice would go out later if the case proceeds. Owners whose child was actually injured are outside the proposed class definition and would need to pursue a separate personal-injury claim.2ClassAction.org. Barraza v. Evenflo Complaint