alt Hacker News> My read is that people overpowered the safety interlock
And you obviously think doing so was next to impossible therefore Instant Pot shouldn't be liable.
But what evidence do you have of the difficulty of bypassing that specific safety mechanism?
> My read is that people overpowered the safety interlock
And you obviously think doing so was next to impossible therefore Instant Pot shouldn't be liable.
But what evidence do you have of the difficulty of bypassing that specific safety mechanism?
I've owned and used two of the affected models (for ~6 years in total), and also read the version of events presented by the plaintiffs (in their claims), as well as the judges' view of what happened.
I originally read the documents to understand whether the unit I own is safe, and believed in its safety strongly enough that I have continued to use it.