LC-3 · Consumer Risk Bulletins

Kinematic Risk Consumer Bulletin

# Kinematic Risk Consumer Bulletin

**LRRK Watch / Open-Source Intelligence** — Consumer kinematic electronics. Monthly filing.

**Issue type.** Monthly KRCB (retrospective). LC-3 (Consumer). Not the weekday 24–48h poll.

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Collection cutoff | 30 November 2025 |
| Window | 1–30 November 2025 |
| Written | 19 August 2026 (retrospective reconstruction) |
| Data label | Open-source intelligence // LRRK analytic product // retrospective monthly filing |
| Handling | Public-source material. Image rights require separate verification before publication. |
| Scope | Consumer kinematic electronics only (home, yard, companion, educational). |
| Classes in frame | Robot vacuums / mop combos · robotic lawn mowers · window-cleaning robots · pool-cleaning robots · robot pets / companion animals · social / desk companions · educational / programmable kits · robotic litter boxes · security / home patrol robots · consumer robotic arms · elder-care / assistive companions · kitchen / food-prep robots · toy / entertainment robots · niche outdoor / garden robots · emerging general-purpose or humanoid home robots |
| Spine | Reputable channels for injury, death, incidents, and safety recalls (CPSC, Health Canada, EU Safety Gate, UK OPSS, manufacturer recall pages, named newsrooms, dockets). |
| Color | Message boards, consumer forums, and Reddit — annotated context only. Never Fact without a reputable primary. |

## Executive read

### BLUF

The would-be home humanoid’s safety file this month is an employment complaint, not a consumer-injury case and not a CPSC rule. *Gruendel v. Figure*, N.D. Cal. 5:25-cv-10094, was filed 21 November. Allegations are not findings. Figure is still not taking $20,000 consumer pre-orders.

### Key judgments

1. **[Assessment — High confidence]** Robert Gruendel, former head of product safety, filed on **21 November 2025** in the Northern District of California. Claims: Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1102.5 and 98.6, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Termination date alleged: 2 September 2025.
2. **[Assessment — High confidence]** The complaint’s safety sentences — robots “powerful enough to fracture a human skull,” a quarter-inch gash in a steel refrigerator — are **allegations**. They are unadjudicated. This filing does not convert a complaint into a finding.
3. **[Inference — Moderate confidence]** Until a consumer-injury docket or a dedicated home-humanoid rule exists, the public safety file for this class will keep arriving as employment and investor-disclosure disputes.

### Analytic labels
- **Fact** — verified reporting or primary record
- **Assessment** — analytic judgment
- **Inference** — reasoned but not directly observed
- **Uncertainty** — unresolved information gap

### Source grades
- **A1** — authoritative primary record / directly confirmed
- **B1–B2** — generally reliable and corroborated
- **C3** — useful but requires caution (typical for forums)

---

## 01. Gruendel v. Figure — 5:25-cv-10094 filed 21 November (allegations, not findings)

*Event / publication dates: complaint filed 21 November 2025; CNBC same day*

**Product class.** Emerging general-purpose or humanoid home robots

**Verified record — [Fact — A1 / B1]** *Gruendel v. Figure AI, Inc.*, N.D. Cal. **5:25-cv-10094**, complaint filed **21 November 2025**. Plaintiff Robert Gruendel, recruited as Head of Product Safety / principal robotic safety engineer. Defendant Figure AI, Inc. Causes as captioned: retaliation (Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5), retaliation (§ 98.6), wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Jury demand. The complaint alleges Gruendel was terminated on **2 September 2025**, days after “most direct and documented safety complaints” in August 2025, with a “change in business direction” as the stated pretext. Safety sentences in the complaint include that Figure’s robots were “powerful enough to fracture a human skull” and that one “had already carved a ¼-inch gash into a steel refrigerator door during a malfunction.” Those are **plaintiff allegations**. CNBC, 21 November 2025, reported the filing and a Figure spokesperson statement that the “allegations are falsehoods that Figure will thoroughly” contest (sentence truncated on the opened lede). **No consumer-injury count. No CPSC action. No finding.** Sources: [CourtListener docket](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71948915/gruendel-v-figure-ai-inc/), [complaint PDF](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.460223/gov.uscourts.cand.460223.1.0.pdf), [CNBC, 21 Nov 2025](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/21/figure-ai-sued.html).

Figure 03 remains an October introduction without a consumer price. 1X NEO remains the priced consumer pre-order. This docket does not make Figure a consumer SKU.

**Threat landscape.** A general-purpose biped intended for home and workplace, whose first public safety record is a whistleblower employment case. Physical consequence named in the complaint (skull fracture; refrigerator gash) is **unproven**. The Control Fabric question is who had halt authority and whether that authority survived “move fast.”

**Forum / community notes.**
- none independently confirmed.

**Intelligence assessment.** [Assessment — High confidence] The docket exists; the claims are employment claims. [Inference — Moderate confidence] The first home-humanoid harm argument will quote this complaint whether or not Gruendel prevails. [Uncertainty] Merits, counterclaims, and any later protective order are not this month’s Facts.

**Opportunity.** An answer, a motion, or a consumer-injury case. A dedicated CPSC home-humanoid rule still does not exist.

**LRRK relevance.** Watch: 5:25-cv-10094. Passport: record that the safety file is an employment dispute, not a home-rule certificate. Kestrel: only if later evidence shows a hidden operator; the complaint does not establish that.

**Confidence.** High on filing date, caption, statutes, and the allegation/finding distinction. Low on the truth of the skull-fracture and refrigerator sentences.

---

## Forward indicators

Ranked watchlist as of 30 November 2025.

1. Figure’s answer and any counterclaim — still allegations if and when filed.
2. 1X NEO order-path teleop-consent text; any 2026 slip.
3. *Gomez* 1:25-cv-05622.
4. Neato hard-off vs button-start.
5. Any official December recall or category-leader market-structure event.

> **Collection integrity.** One sourced signal. **Killed:** treating Gruendel as a finding of injury; treating Figure as a $20,000 consumer pre-order; treating August internal complaints as an August public signal (they were not public until this filing). No CPSC / Health Canada / OPSS consumer-robot action dated November 2025 was found.

*LRRK — security assurance for systems that sense, move, and act.*

<p align="right"><span style="opacity:0.35;letter-spacing:0.18em;font-size:0.8em">L-C3</span></p>