Nitrous Oxide Product Liability Litigation

Updated: August 2026 | Attorney: Jennifer Duffy | Litigation: Nitrous Oxide Product Liability

A developing series of product liability lawsuits alleges that consumers suffered serious neurological and other injuries after recreational inhalation of large-format and flavored nitrous oxide products. The litigation includes claims against Amazon and companies allegedly involved in the manufacture, distribution, marketing, and sale of nitrous oxide products.

Attorney Jennifer Duffy of the Law Offices of Jennifer Duffy, APC represents plaintiffs in active nitrous oxide product liability cases in federal and state courts. Duffy’s involvement began before the current litigation was publicly known. Beginning in 2025, she investigated the products and companies involved, researched potential product liability claims, worked with scientific and medical experts concerning causation, and developed theories of liability involving participants throughout the manufacture and distribution chain.

The litigation has progressed beyond the filing of initial complaints. Federal court proceedings have addressed discovery involving multiple nitrous oxide cases with overlapping allegations concerning Amazon’s alleged role in the sale and promotion of nitrous oxide products, its alleged knowledge of recreational use, and alleged failures to provide adequate warnings.

---

Jennifer Duffy’s Role in Developing the Nitrous Oxide Litigation

Jennifer Duffy’s work on the current nitrous oxide product liability litigation began before the filing of the first case. Starting in 2025, Duffy investigated reports of serious injuries associated with recreational use of large-format and flavored nitrous oxide products and began examining potential claims against companies involved in their manufacture, distribution, promotion, and sale.

The investigation developed across several areas, including medical causation, identification of products and potential defendants, product liability law, and the potential responsibility of online marketplaces and other sellers.

Scientific and Causation Investigation

Beginning in April 2025, Duffy investigated the medical mechanisms by which repeated nitrous oxide exposure may cause neurological injury. Her investigation included consultation with scientific and medical experts and research involving disciplines including neurology, toxicology, hematology, pharmacology, and epidemiology.

A significant area of investigation concerned the relationship between repeated nitrous oxide exposure, functional inactivation of vitamin B12, and neurological consequences reported by injured individuals.

The specific cause and extent of any plaintiff’s injuries remain issues to be established through medical evidence, expert analysis, and the litigation process.

Product and Defendant Investigation

Duffy also investigated how large-format nitrous oxide products were manufactured, imported, marketed, distributed, and ultimately sold to consumers.

That investigation examined entities throughout the product distribution chain, including manufacturers, importers, distributors, marketplace sellers, and retailers. The resulting lawsuits name different combinations of defendants based on the products and transactions alleged in each case.

The litigation includes allegations that certain defendants knew or should have known that large-format and flavored nitrous oxide products were being purchased for recreational inhalation while failing to provide adequate warnings concerning the potential consequences of that use.

These allegations remain subject to proof and adjudication in the pending cases.

Development of Marketplace Liability Theories

An important part of Duffy’s investigation concerned the potential liability of Amazon in connection with nitrous oxide products sold through its marketplace.

The complaints contain detailed allegations concerning Amazon’s alleged involvement in product listings, product availability, distribution, fulfillment, promotion, and consumer safety. Plaintiffs allege that Amazon knew or should have known that certain nitrous oxide products offered through its marketplace were being purchased for recreational inhalation and failed to take adequate measures to prevent or warn against the alleged risks.

Duffy developed the plaintiffs’ theory for imposing liability on Amazon as part of the broader investigation into companies involved in placing these products into the stream of commerce.

Amazon and other defendants are entitled to contest these allegations, and the claims remain subject to the judicial process.

Litigation Framework

The investigation ultimately developed into a litigation framework being applied across multiple injured plaintiffs, products, manufacturers, sellers, and cases.

The cases are not identical. Individual plaintiffs may allege different products, defendants, purchase histories, exposures, and injuries. However, a federal court has recognized substantial overlap among several of the cases with respect to allegations and discovery involving Amazon.

That overlap has become particularly significant as the litigation has moved into discovery.

Nitrous Oxide Cases Being Litigated

Jennifer Duffy represents plaintiffs in multiple pending nitrous oxide product liability actions. These cases involve allegations against Amazon and various companies involved in manufacturing, distributing, marketing, or selling large-format nitrous oxide products.

The following are among the cases currently being litigated.

Todd v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.

Josh Todd v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al. is a federal product liability action involving injuries allegedly resulting from recreational use of flavored nitrous oxide products purchased through third-party sellers on Amazon.

The action names Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com Inc., Commerce Enterprises Inc., and other defendants. The complaint asserts claims including strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection law.

The injuries alleged in connection with Todd’s nitrous oxide exposure include vitamin B12 deficiency, myelopathy, neuropathy, diplegia, pulmonary embolism, muscle spasms, gait and mobility abnormalities, and incontinence. Public reporting concerning the complaint describes extensive inpatient treatment and physical therapy.

Jennifer Duffy represents plaintiff Josh Todd in the litigation. Federal docket records show that Jennifer Lynn Duffy was admitted pro hac vice on behalf of Todd on January 29, 2026.

The Todd case has also become important to the broader nitrous oxide litigation because discovery obtained in the action has been the subject of proceedings concerning its potential use in other cases involving overlapping allegations against Amazon.

Primary Sources and Court Records

View the Todd federal docket.
View the federal court’s discovery order concerning related nitrous oxide cases.

Finnegan v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.

Finnegan v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al. is a Washington state product liability action involving allegations against Amazon and numerous companies allegedly involved in the manufacture, distribution, promotion, or sale of nitrous oxide products.

Public records identify defendants including Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com Inc., Commerce Enterprises, Baking Bad Group, Monster Gas, Galaxy Gas, Select Distributors, Sweet and Sour Holdings, Ramdon Corp., IK Distributions, Hunan Huiteng Gas, Kayser Berndorf, and other entities.

The case illustrates the broader distribution-chain theory underlying the litigation. Rather than focusing exclusively on a single manufacturer or seller, the action alleges liability against multiple entities based on their respective alleged roles in bringing nitrous oxide products to consumers.

The Finnegan complaint describes a wide range of alleged injuries associated with nitrous oxide exposure, including abnormal blood counts, blood clots, impaired bowel and bladder function, limb weakness, loss of consciousness, numbness, paralysis, psychiatric disturbances, loss of motor skills and coordination, abnormal gait, memory loss, vitamin B12 deficiency, spinal cord damage, and brain damage.

These are allegations made in the pending litigation and do not constitute findings that any particular defendant caused the alleged injuries.

Finnegan has also become relevant to discovery proceedings in the federal Todd litigation. A federal court subsequently considered the overlap between discovery concerning Amazon in Todd and allegations made in Finnegan and other nitrous oxide cases.

Primary Sources and Court Records

View the Finnegan complaint.
View the federal discovery order discussing Finnegan and related nitrous oxide cases.

Krouse v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.

Krouse v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al. is another federal personal injury and product liability action arising from alleged injuries associated with nitrous oxide products.

Public court records identify defendants including Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com Inc., Galaxy Gas-related entities, and Happy Supply/Cream N20.

Krouse has progressed beyond the initial filing stage. According to the federal docket, the case is subject to a scheduling order establishing deadlines for expert disclosures, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.

The current schedule provides for expert disclosures by May 5, 2027, completion of discovery by July 6, 2027, dispositive motions by August 3, 2027, and a jury trial scheduled for November 1, 2027. Court schedules may be modified as litigation progresses.

Krouse is also one of the cases identified in the federal Todd proceedings when the court considered whether protected discovery concerning Amazon could be used across related nitrous oxide actions.

Primary Sources and Court Records

View the Krouse federal docket.
View the federal discovery order discussing Krouse and related nitrous oxide cases.

Nitrous Oxide Cases Have Advanced Into Discovery

The pending nitrous oxide cases have progressed beyond the filing of complaints. Federal court records show that discovery involving Amazon has become relevant across multiple actions containing overlapping allegations.

In Todd v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., plaintiffs sought permission for protected discovery obtained from Amazon to be made available for use in four other nitrous oxide actions: Finnegan, Lira, Bogusta, and Krouse.

U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik addressed the relationship among these cases in an order concerning discovery.

The court found substantial overlap among the cases regarding allegations concerning Amazon’s role in selling and promoting nitrous oxide products, Amazon’s alleged knowledge that the products were being used recreationally, and allegations that Amazon failed to provide adequate warnings.

The court also recognized that discovery concerning Amazon’s conduct was relevant to the related cases and that allowing access to the discovery could avoid substantial duplication of discovery efforts.

The order is significant to the developing litigation because it independently recognizes common factual and liability issues across multiple nitrous oxide actions. Rather than existing solely as isolated complaints involving individual plaintiffs, several of the pending cases now share discovery concerning overlapping allegations against Amazon.

Timeline: How the Nitrous Oxide Litigation Developed

April 2025 — Initial Investigation

Jennifer Duffy began investigating potential product liability claims involving large-format and flavored nitrous oxide products after learning of serious injuries allegedly suffered by people using the products recreationally.

The initial investigation focused on understanding the products involved, the nature of the reported injuries, how the products were reaching consumers, and which companies might bear potential legal responsibility.

April 2025 — Scientific Investigation

Duffy began consulting with medical and scientific experts concerning the mechanisms by which repeated nitrous oxide exposure may cause neurological injury.

The investigation included the potential relationship between nitrous oxide exposure, functional vitamin B12 inactivation, and neurological consequences, as well as research across neurology, toxicology, hematology, pharmacology, epidemiology, and related fields.

May 2025 — Defendant Investigation

The investigation expanded to the commercial ecosystem surrounding large-format nitrous oxide products.

Duffy researched the manufacture, importation, distribution, promotion, online sale, and retail availability of the products in an effort to identify potentially responsible entities throughout the distribution chain.

The investigation included manufacturers, importers, distributors, marketplace sellers, retailers, and other entities associated with bringing nitrous oxide products to consumers.

May 2025 — Liability Theories Developed

Duffy researched and developed potential product liability theories concerning manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and online marketplaces.

The investigation included failure-to-warn and related theories based on allegations that certain companies knew or should have known that large-format or flavored nitrous oxide products were foreseeably being purchased for recreational inhalation.

The work also included development of theories concerning Amazon’s alleged role in the availability, promotion, fulfillment, distribution, and sale of nitrous oxide products through its marketplace.

June 2025 — NitrousLawsuit.com Launched

NitrousLawsuit.com was launched as a resource for individuals reporting serious neurological and other injuries following nitrous oxide use and to identify potential plaintiffs whose circumstances might warrant further investigation.

January 2026 — Todd Filed

Duffy and co-counsel filed Todd v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The case asserted product liability and related claims concerning flavored nitrous oxide products allegedly purchased through third-party sellers on Amazon.

February 2026 — Finnegan Filed

Finnegan v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al. was filed in King County Superior Court in Washington.

The action expanded the litigation to include numerous entities allegedly involved in the manufacture, distribution, promotion, or sale of nitrous oxide products.

April 2026 — Additional Cases

Additional nitrous oxide actions were pursued in state and federal courts, including Krouse v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.

The cases involve different plaintiffs, products, and defendants but contain overlapping allegations concerning the manufacture, distribution, marketing, and sale of nitrous oxide products.

2026 — Cases Advance Into Discovery

The litigation subsequently progressed into discovery.

In the federal Todd case, Judge Robert S. Lasnik addressed the use of Amazon discovery across Todd and four other nitrous oxide cases — Finnegan, Lira, Bogusta, and Krouse — recognizing substantial overlap in allegations and discovery issues involving Amazon.

Injuries Alleged in Nitrous Oxide Lawsuits

The pending lawsuits describe serious neurological, vascular, and other injuries allegedly associated with nitrous oxide exposure.

Injuries and medical conditions alleged in the litigation include:

• Vitamin B12 deficiency
• Myelopathy
• Neuropathy
• Limb Weakness
• Numbness
• Paralysis
• Abnormal gait
• Loss of motor coordination
• Spinal cord injury
• Blood clots
• Brain injury
• Bowel/bladder impairment
• Memory problems

The particular injuries, exposure histories, medical evidence, and causation allegations vary from plaintiff to plaintiff. The conditions listed above reflect allegations contained in or reported in connection with the litigation and should not be interpreted to mean that every individual who uses nitrous oxide will experience these conditions.

Whether a particular injury was caused by nitrous oxide exposure is an individual medical and legal question that depends upon the evidence in each case.

Frequently Asked Questions About Nitrous Oxide Lawsuits

Who is handling the nitrous oxide lawsuits?

Attorney Jennifer Duffy of the Law Offices of Jennifer Duffy, APC represents plaintiffs in active nitrous oxide product liability litigation involving Amazon and companies allegedly involved in manufacturing, distributing, marketing, and selling large-format nitrous oxide products.

Duffy represents plaintiffs in cases including Todd v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., Finnegan v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., and Krouse v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al. The litigation is pending in federal and state courts and has progressed into discovery.

Who filed the first nitrous oxide product liability lawsuit?

Jennifer Duffy and co-counsel filed Todd v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in January 2026.

Todd is identified by Duffy as the first known case in the current wave of product liability litigation targeting the retail sale and distribution of large-format and flavored nitrous oxide products.

Are there lawsuits against Amazon for nitrous oxide?

Yes. Amazon.com Services LLC and/or Amazon.com Inc. are named as defendants in multiple pending nitrous oxide product liability actions, including Todd v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., Finnegan v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., and Krouse v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.

The cases include allegations concerning Amazon’s role in the availability, promotion, distribution, fulfillment, or sale of nitrous oxide products and what plaintiffs allege Amazon knew or should have known concerning recreational use of the products. Amazon is entitled to contest those allegations in court.

What is the Todd nitrous oxide lawsuit?

Todd v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., No. 2:26-cv-00278-RSL, is a federal product liability action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on January 23, 2026.

The lawsuit concerns serious injuries allegedly resulting from recreational use of flavored nitrous oxide products purchased through third-party sellers on Amazon. The action asserts claims including strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and consumer protection claims.

Jennifer Duffy represents plaintiff Josh Todd in the litigation.

What is the Finnegan nitrous oxide lawsuit?

Finnegan v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., No. 26-2-05235-2 SEA, is a product liability action filed in King County Superior Court in Washington on February 9, 2026.

The lawsuit names Amazon and numerous entities allegedly involved in manufacturing, distributing, promoting, or selling nitrous oxide products. The complaint alleges serious neurological and other injuries and asserts liability against companies at multiple levels of the product distribution chain.

Jennifer Duffy represents plaintiffs in the litigation.

What is the Krouse nitrous oxide lawsuit?

Krouse v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., No. 2:26-cv-01286-RSL, is a federal personal injury and product liability action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The action names Amazon and other entities associated with nitrous oxide products. The case has progressed into the pretrial process, with a scheduling order establishing deadlines for expert disclosures, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.

Are nitrous oxide lawsuits in discovery?

Yes. Federal court proceedings establish that discovery is underway in the developing nitrous oxide litigation.

In Todd v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., plaintiffs sought authority to make protected Amazon discovery available for use in Finnegan, Lira, Bogusta, and Krouse. Judge Robert S. Lasnik found substantial overlap among the cases concerning allegations involving Amazon and recognized that cross-case access to discovery could avoid substantial duplication.

What injuries are alleged in nitrous oxide lawsuits?

Pending nitrous oxide lawsuits allege injuries including neuropathy, myelopathy, vitamin B12 deficiency, limb weakness, numbness, paralysis, abnormal gait, impaired coordination, spinal cord damage, brain damage, blood clots, pulmonary embolism, and impaired bowel and bladder function.

The injuries and medical evidence differ by plaintiff, and allegations made in a lawsuit are not judicial findings of causation or liability.

What companies are defendants in nitrous oxide lawsuits?

Defendants vary by case. Pending litigation has named Amazon entities as well as companies allegedly involved in manufacturing, importing, distributing, marketing, or selling nitrous oxide products.

Public records associated with the litigation identify entities including Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com Inc., Commerce Enterprises, Galaxy Gas-related entities, Baking Bad Group, Monster Gas, Select Distributors, Sweet and Sour Holdings, Ramdon Corp., IK Distributions, Hunan Huiteng Gas, Kayser Berndorf, Happy Supply/Cream N20, and others.

The inclusion of a company as a defendant represents allegations against that company and does not establish liability.

Can I sue for nitrous oxide nerve damage?

Whether someone may have a viable nitrous oxide injury claim depends on the circumstances of the individual case.

Relevant factors may include the nitrous oxide product used, where and how it was purchased, the companies involved in manufacturing or selling it, the individual’s exposure history, the nature and severity of the injuries, medical records, and evidence connecting the exposure to the claimed injuries.

An attorney evaluating a potential nitrous oxide claim can review those circumstances and determine whether further investigation may be warranted.

Court Records and Independent Sources

The information on this page is supported where possible by publicly available court records, complaints, docket information, and independent legal reporting.

Todd v. Amazon

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Case No. 2:26-cv-00278-RSL

• Federal docket for Todd v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.
• Federal court order concerning discovery across related nitrous oxide actions
• PACERMonitor record

Finnegan v. Amazon

King County Superior Court, Washington
Case No. 26-2-05235-2 SEA

• Complaint in Finnegan v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.
• Public case and docket information

Krouse v. Amazon

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Case No. 2:26-cv-01286-RSL

• Federal docket for Krouse v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.
• PACERMonitor record
• Scheduling and procedural information

Independent reporting

• Law360 reporting concerning the Amazon nitrous oxide litigation

Court cases evolve over time. Readers should consult the current docket for the most recent procedural information.

About Attorney Jennifer Duffy

Jennifer Duffy is an attorney with the Law Offices of Jennifer Duffy, APC and represents plaintiffs in active nitrous oxide product liability litigation.

Duffy began investigating potential claims involving large-format and flavored nitrous oxide products in 2025. Her work included investigation of the products and companies involved in their manufacture and distribution, consultation with medical and scientific experts concerning alleged injuries and causation, development of product liability theories, and investigation of potential claims involving online marketplaces and other sellers.

Duffy represents plaintiffs in pending nitrous oxide cases involving Amazon and other defendants in federal and state courts, including litigation that has progressed into discovery.

Jennifer Duffy
Attorney at Law
Law Offices of Jennifer Duffy, APC

Injured After Using Nitrous Oxide?

Individuals who have suffered serious neurological or other injuries after using nitrous oxide products may have questions about whether their circumstances are similar to those alleged in pending litigation.

Potential claims depend on individual facts, including the product used, where it was purchased, the companies involved in its manufacture or sale, the nature of the exposure, medical diagnosis, and available records.