Bestway $15 Million Settlement for Drowning Risk in Certain Above-Ground Pools

From about 2008 to 2024, Bestway sold certain above-ground pools—at least 48 inches tall—under brand names like Power Steel, Steel Pro, and Coleman Power Steel. The lawsuit focused on a specific design feature: compression straps placed on the outside of the vertical support legs. Plaintiffs alleged that some models had a safety defect that could increase the risk of a pool failure or instability, which in turn raised drowning concerns, and they argued that an earlier voluntary recall did not fully address consumers’ ability to recover money. In response, the companies agreed to a $15 million class action settlement even though they deny wrongdoing, aiming to resolve the dispute without the expense and uncertainty of continued litigation. The case was filed so affected purchasers could potentially receive compensation as part of a group settlement. Eligible consumers must have bought a qualifying Bestway pool in the U.S. (or territories or D.C.), for personal use and new from a retailer, and the claim must be submitted by Oct. 30, 2026 (with a fairness hearing scheduled for Nov. 20, 2026). Payments can be 10% of the purchase price (or an average retail price if the receipt doesn’t show the exact total), or $40 if the claimant can’t provide proof of purchase; only one claim is allowed per household. This matters beyond one brand because it reflects a recurring pattern in consumer product litigation—when safety allegations involve children’s products and drowning hazards, courts often see claims tied to design, warnings, recalls, and product reliability, alongside industry pressure to follow safety standards and document compliance. More broadly, the settlement sits within the larger regulatory and legal ecosystem for pool and water-safety products, where manufacturers must consider design safety and how warnings/recalls function in real consumer use. In the U.S., product safety issues can implicate obligations and enforcement roles connected to consumer protection and safety rulemaking (including standards overseen by federal agencies), and similar cases have typically followed the same themes: specific product configurations, claimed failure modes, and disputes over whether earlier recalls provided adequate remedies to purchasers. By creating a structured claim process and tying compensation to proof of purchase, the settlement highlights how the industry and regulators expect companies to address safety risks proactively—and how consumers may seek redress when that safety protection is disputed, ultimately leaving the court to determine final approval of the agreement.