The Siemens arc fault breaker lawsuit is a consolidated proposed class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Kevin Brnich Electric LLC, et al. v. Siemens Industry, Inc. (Case No. 1:22-cv-01229-MHC), before Judge Mark H. Cohen. Homeowners and electricians allege that Siemens arc fault circuit interrupter (AFCI) breakers trip constantly during normal household use, that Siemens knew this and concealed it, and that consumers cannot simply switch to a standard breaker because electrical codes require AFCI protection. As of early 2026, the case is active, with no settlement, no class certification decision, and no trial date reported.1Cohen Milstein. Siemens Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI) Litigation
What the Breakers Are Supposed to Do, and What Plaintiffs Say Goes Wrong
AFCI breakers are designed to detect dangerous electrical arcs, where current jumps through an unintended path and can reach 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and to cut power before a fire starts. The plaintiffs claim Siemens’ AFCI breakers cannot reliably tell the difference between a genuinely dangerous arc and the harmless electrical signatures of common household appliances running normally.2ClassAction.org. Siemens Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters Prone to Nuisance Tripping, Class Action Alleges
The complaint calls the result “nuisance tripping”: breakers that shut off frequently and without cause, rendering entire circuits unusable and forcing repeated troubleshooting.1Cohen Milstein. Siemens Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI) Litigation According to the plaintiffs, Siemens failed to update its AFCI technology as new appliances entered the market and as codes expanded where AFCI protection is mandatory. A trip from a defective breaker looks identical to a trip from a real arc, so homeowners and electricians cannot tell which they’re dealing with, and the complaint says the breaker often has to be replaced outright.2ClassAction.org. Siemens Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters Prone to Nuisance Tripping, Class Action Alleges
What Siemens Allegedly Said About Complaints
A large part of the lawsuit turns on how Siemens responded to reports of nuisance tripping. The complaint alleges that a Siemens employee told Electrical Contractor Magazine in May 2017 that people “believe that certain arc fault breakers are defective because they frequently trip,” but “the majority of the time, these breakers trip because they are supposed to.” The company also gave a presentation titled “Debunking the Myths of AFCI” that, according to the complaint, attributed nuisance trips to “creative wiring practices” by electricians.3Archive.org. Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Case 1:22-cv-01229-MHC
The plaintiffs further allege that Siemens tested hundreds of AFCI breakers returned as defective and that its own testing confirmed the breakers “trip in inappropriate circumstances,” specifically when appliances drew high amperage or when electrical noise was present on a circuit. Even so, according to the complaint, Siemens concluded the breakers were not defective and continued marketing diagnostic tools that the plaintiffs say mainly shifted blame onto homeowners and electricians. The complaint points to electrician complaints on industry forums, Amazon, Home Depot, and Reddit going back to at least January 2017, describing investigations into nuisance trips that turned up nothing.3Archive.org. Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Case 1:22-cv-01229-MHC
Who Is in the Proposed Class
The proposed class is nationwide and covers two groups: U.S. consumers who bought a Siemens AFCI breaker (excluding purchases made for resale), and any electrician or electrical business in the United States that installed, investigated, or tried to fix nuisance tripping in these products.2ClassAction.org. Siemens Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters Prone to Nuisance Tripping, Class Action Alleges The named plaintiffs are a mix of electrical businesses, including Kevin Brnich Electric LLC and Performance Electric, Inc., and individual consumers.4Cohen Milstein. Order on Amended Motion to Dismiss, Case 1:22-cv-01229-MHC Cohen Milstein serves as co-lead counsel.1Cohen Milstein. Siemens Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI) Litigation
The class has not been certified. Certification is a separate ruling the court has not yet issued, and until it does, no one is bound by or entitled to relief from the case.
Where the Case Stands
Siemens moved to dismiss, and the court has ruled on that motion in stages. On May 18, 2023, Judge Cohen dismissed the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled, and dismissed several state consumer protection claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim. He let California consumer protection claims proceed and gave Siemens leave to file an amended motion on remaining counts, including fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.4Cohen Milstein. Order on Amended Motion to Dismiss, Case 1:22-cv-01229-MHC
On February 2, 2024, the court ruled on the amended motion. A central issue was the economic loss rule, which generally requires buyers who suffer only financial harm to sue under contract law rather than tort law. The court found no conflict for plaintiffs in Georgia and Ohio, both of which recognize fraud and intentional tort exceptions, and it identified true conflicts for California, Nebraska, and New Hampshire plaintiffs that will need further choice-of-law analysis. Siemens’ motion was denied in part, and the California consumer protection claims along with other counts move forward.4Cohen Milstein. Order on Amended Motion to Dismiss, Case 1:22-cv-01229-MHC
A related South Carolina case, Lawrence v. Siemens Industry Inc. (Case No. 4:23-cv-02521), was stayed on October 23, 2023, pending the outcome of the consolidated Georgia action, and the court denied Siemens’ motions to dismiss in that case without prejudice.5CourtListener. Lawrence v. Siemens Industry Inc., Case 4:23-cv-02521 A docket entry dated February 19, 2026, confirms the Georgia case remains active, though its substance is not publicly available in the record reviewed here.6PACER Monitor. Kevin Brnich Electric LLC et al v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Docket Entry 154
Why You Can’t Just Swap in a Regular Breaker
Part of what makes the alleged defect costly is that a homeowner experiencing constant tripping cannot fix it by installing a standard breaker. The National Electrical Code, adopted by most U.S. jurisdictions, requires AFCI protection on nearly all 120-volt, 15- and 20-amp home circuits, including kitchens, bedrooms, living rooms, hallways, closets, and laundry areas.7City of St. Paul. AFCI Protection Requirements Those requirements have grown with each code cycle, and the 2023 NEC extended AFCI mandates to additional occupancy types, including dormitories and certain institutional sleeping quarters.8Eaton. AFCI and GFCI Requirements Installing a non-AFCI breaker where the code requires arc-fault protection would violate the code. That leaves consumers stuck: they need the protection, and the plaintiffs allege the product providing it does not work as promised.