Published
June 30, 2026
If you bought a Master Lock 140-series padlock for its "pick resistant" rating, a new lawsuit alleges a design flaw lets the lock be opened in seconds with an inexpensive comb pick.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Master Lock Company LLC and Fortune Brands Innovations have not been found liable, there is no certified class, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This Lawsuit About?
A proposed class action filed May 15, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California accuses Master Lock Company LLC and its parent, Fortune Brands Innovations, of falsely marketing a line of padlocks as resistant to picking. The case is captioned Miller v. Master Lock Company LLC, No. 3:26-cv-03081-JO-SBC. According to the complaint, the named plaintiff, a San Diego consumer, bought a Master Lock 140D padlock from a brick-and-mortar Home Depot store on several occasions, most recently in November 2025, after reviewing the packaging's pick-resistance rating.The complaint targets Master Lock's 140 line of padlocks, including the 140D, 140Q, 140T, 140DLF, and 140KAD, and says further research or discovery may identify additional padlocks in the line with the same alleged design issue. Each Product in the line carries a numeric pick-resistance score on its packaging — the complaint says all five named models are rated 4 out of 10 — and Master Lock's online marketing describes the lock's "4-pin cylinder" as something that "prevents picking." The complaint alleges that, regardless of the printed score, the locks provide little to no actual resistance to a basic picking technique. These are allegations only; Master Lock has not yet responded in court, and nothing has been proven.
Status
Complaint Filed
filed May 15, 2026 in the S.D. Cal. · allegations only · no settlement
What's Alleged
False "Pick Resistant" Labeling
design flaw allegedly lets a comb pick open the lock without a key
Products
Master Lock 140D, 140Q, 140T, 140DLF, 140KAD
Master Lock's 140-series padlock line
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only; no settlement fund and no payout available
The Alleged Design Flaw
The complaint walks through the basic mechanics of a pin-tumbler padlock: a key normally lines up a row of internal "key pins" and spring-loaded "driver pins" at the lock's shear line, allowing the cylindrical plug to rotate and release the shackle. A common lock-picking technique uses a "comb pick" — a flat tool with a row of teeth cut to common pin-height patterns — to push some or all of the pins to the shear line at once without a key.According to the complaint, Master Lock's 140-series locks are manufactured with a pin chamber that is deeper than necessary and a plug wide enough to accommodate a standard comb pick without resistance. The complaint alleges that, because of this combination, a comb pick can be inserted into the plug and, with light upward pressure, lift the pins above the shear line and open the lock without a key. The complaint states that counsel purchased a 140D padlock and a comb pick, learned the technique in under ten minutes, and recorded a demonstration video, and that the comb pick itself can be bought online for roughly $6. The complaint also cites a third-party video and online reviews that it says describe similar results. None of this has been tested in court, and Master Lock disputes nothing yet because it has not had the opportunity to respond.
The complaint contrasts Master Lock's marketing with a competing padlock brand it says makes no pick-resistance claim at all, arguing that Master Lock chose to advertise a pick-resistance rating that the design allegedly does not support. The complaint also cites a lock-picking hobbyist's online commentary suggesting the issue could be addressed with design changes such as a deeper internal "bible" or a more intricate keyway. These are allegations and third-party opinions cited in the complaint, not findings by any court.
Who Is Covered and What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of U.S. purchasers of the named padlocks, plus a California subclass. It brings claims under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, along with claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.The plaintiff seeks class certification, an injunction against the challenged "pick resistant" labeling, and monetary relief including damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees. As with any newly filed complaint, the relief requested is a request, not an award — no money has been ordered and none is available now.
What Happens Next?
The case is in its earliest stage. No class has been certified, meaning the court has not decided whether the case can proceed on behalf of all affected purchasers. The complaint states that Plaintiff's counsel sent Master Lock a pre-suit demand letter on April 2, 2026, and that Master Lock did not resolve the issues raised before the lawsuit was filed. Defendants will have an opportunity to answer the complaint and may move to dismiss or narrow the claims. If the case survives, the parties would exchange evidence in discovery, and the plaintiff would ask the court to certify a class. Many proposed consumer class actions are dismissed, narrowed, or settled before any payout, and there is no guarantee this case results in a settlement or recovery.Do I Need to Do Anything Right Now?
No. There is no claim form, no deadline, and no settlement fund at this stage. Consumers do not need to save receipts or contact the court. If the case ever advances to a settlement or judgment, class members would be notified about how to participate.Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Master Lock settlement or claim form?No. This is a newly filed complaint, not a settlement. There is no claim form and no guarantee that consumers will ever receive money from this case.
What does the lawsuit allege?
That Master Lock's 140-series padlocks are labeled "pick resistant" with a numeric score, but a design flaw allegedly lets them be opened without a key using an inexpensive comb pick.
Which products are named?
The Master Lock 140D, 140Q, 140T, 140DLF, and 140KAD padlocks, with the complaint reserving the right to add other 140-line padlocks if discovery identifies the same alleged issue.
Who filed it and where?
A San Diego consumer filed Miller v. Master Lock Company LLC, No. 3:26-cv-03081-JO-SBC, on May 15, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
What is Fortune Brands Innovations' role?
The complaint names Fortune Brands Innovations as a co-defendant and describes it as Master Lock's parent company. Neither company has been found liable, and these are allegations only.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Miller v. Master Lock Company LLC and Fortune Brands Innovations, No. 3:26-cv-03081-JO-SBC (S.D. Cal. filed May 15, 2026)• Master Lock product packaging and online marketing materials cited in the complaint
• Demonstration video referenced in the complaint, recorded by Plaintiff's counsel (April 16, 2026)
About This Page
This page summarizes the class action complaint in Miller v. Master Lock Company LLC and Fortune Brands Innovations, No. 3:26-cv-03081-JO-SBC (S.D. Cal.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site and is not a law firm, the plaintiff's counsel, Master Lock, Fortune Brands Innovations, or a party to this case. The allegations in the complaint have not been proven in court, and Defendants have not yet responded. This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — No Settlement, No Claim Form
Case Title
Miller v. Master Lock Company LLC and Fortune Brands Innovations
Case Number
3:26-cv-03081-JO-SBC
Court
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Date Filed
May 15, 2026
Defendants
Master Lock Company LLC and Fortune Brands Innovations
Class Status
Not yet certified — early stage
