--- title: "Midea Group — Midea: the air-conditioner recall and separate US proceedings" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/midea/product-safety-and-us-cases/ as_of: 2026-10-02 keywords: ["Midea","Midea Group","美的集团","KUKA","CLOU","Hiconics","Teka","Wandong"] --- # Midea Group — Midea: the air-conditioner recall and separate US proceedings **Question.** What was recalled, and what do the court and trade decisions establish? **Answer.** The recall provides a remedy, while jurisdiction, patent stays and withdrawn claims have narrower procedural effects. ## The recall and remedy - Analysis: The June 2025 US product-safety recall covered about 1.7 million Midea-made U and U+ window air conditioners, plus about 45,900 in Canada. Inadequate drainage could allow mould growth. The notice identified GD Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment as manufacturer and Midea America as importer. The notice recorded 152 mould reports, including 17 reports of symptoms; this is not a judicial determination of causation in each individual case. The remedy was a free repair or full or prorated refund, with model-specific instructions from the recall programme. The English regulator notice was cross-checked against the retained translated page. The existence of the remedy does not establish that every affected unit was repaired. [s-d312] ## Product-liability procedure - Analysis: In Huth, a Kansas product-liability case concerning a dehumidifier, the magistrate judge denied jurisdictional discovery on 28 January 2025. The remaining defendants were GD Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment and Midea Group; Midea America had previously been dismissed. The court expressly distinguished pleaded background from findings. This discovery ruling does not determine whether the product was defective. The manufacturing company said its control ended with an Asian sale to Electrolux and it had no Kansas contacts. Midea Group said it neither manufactured nor sold the product and had no Kansas contacts. The plaintiffs had not supplied the controverted jurisdictional facts needed for the requested discovery. No later merits outcome is established by this opinion. [s-d313] ## The patent and trade proceedings - Analysis: Whirlpool’s microwave-hood dispute includes a federal patent action and US trade investigation 337-TA-1467. The February 2026 trade notice terminated only the named Haier respondent after withdrawal, following earlier withdrawals for other respondents. The June notice withdrew specified patent claims. Neither notice terminates the investigation against Midea as a whole or decides infringement on the merits. The separate federal action was stayed by a January 2026 consent order while the trade proceeding continued. A stay and a partial withdrawal are different procedural outcomes. [s-d285] [s-d315] [s-d366] ## The separate trade-secrets action - Analysis: Haier US Appliance Solutions brought a New Jersey trade-secrets action against Midea America in April 2025. The docket records denial of the application for an order to show cause on 1 May. On 22 May the court denied both the plaintiff’s request for expedited discovery and the defendant’s request to stay discovery pending its dismissal motion, allowing ordinary discovery to proceed. These procedural rulings do not adjudicate whether trade secrets were misappropriated. Filing a dismissal motion is not obtaining dismissal. The retained docket continues with disputed discovery and a motion to dismiss; it does not establish a final merits judgment or settlement. [s-d275] ## Sources - [s-d312] Regulatory record concerning the identified entity or transaction, www.cpsc.gov - [s-d313] Court record source · s-d313 - [s-d285] Court record source · s-d285 - [s-d315] Regulatory record concerning the identified entity or transaction, www.usitc.gov - [s-d366] Regulatory record concerning the identified entity or transaction, www.usitc.gov - [s-d275] Court record source · s-d275