A federal judge in Massachusetts has allowed key claims to move forward against Hershey and related companies in a lawsuit over a teenager’s death after eating a “One Chip Challenge” product, focusing the case on a central question: was the chip simply too dangerous as designed?

At this stage, the court found enough evidence to proceed on the theory that the product’s extreme capsaicin levels, the chemical that creates heat, may have created a foreseeable and preventable risk of serious harm.

The core claim is straightforward. The chip may have been made so intensely spicy that it crossed the line from “extreme” to unsafe. In plain terms, a design defect claim asks: should this product have been made this way at all?

The court made clear the plaintiff does not need to identify the exact “safe” level of spice at this stage. Nor do they need to suggest an entirely different product. The issue is whether the manufacturer pushed the design beyond what was reasonably safe for consumers.

That’s how these cases are typically decided. If a company can deliver the same general product, a very spicy chip, without creating a serious risk of harm, then failing to do so becomes the problem.

Foreseeability is key here as it is in all negligence cases. This product wasn’t just sold as a snack. It was marketed around a viral “challenge” that encouraged people, often teenagers, to eat it under conditions that made the effects more intense. That kind of use wasn’t accidental. It was predictable.

Hershey argued the case should be dismissed because capsaicin, the ingredient that makes peppers hot, is generally considered safe. The court rejected that argument, and the distinction is important. The issue isn’t whether capsaicin is safe in general. It’s whether the amount used in this specific product made it unreasonably dangerous.

That’s a common issue in product cases. Many products are made from ingredients that are safe in small amounts but dangerous in higher concentrations. When a company pushes those limits, it can create liability.

The court did dismiss some claims, but those rulings largely narrow the case rather than change its direction. The manufacturing defect claim was thrown out because there was no allegation that this chip was different from others. In other words, nothing suggests this was a one-off problem for Hershey. The claim is that the product itself is the problem.

Claims that the companies acted intentionally or recklessly were also dismissed. There were no facts showing the defendants meant to cause harm. That leaves the case focused on whether the design was unsafe, not whether anyone acted with bad intent.

Walgreens and the Limits of Warnings

The claims against Walgreens, which sold the chip, were also dismissed—and that result is not unusual.

The main issue was causation. There was no allegation that the teenager saw or relied on any warning on the packaging. Without that, it’s difficult to argue that different or stronger warnings would have changed what happened.

The court also declined to impose a duty on the retailer to restrict sales. The product wasn’t legally age-restricted like alcohol or tobacco, and stores are generally not required to create their own restrictions for lawful products.

There’s another practical point here. The complaint itself acknowledged that warnings can have the opposite effect on some consumers, especially teenagers. Instead of discouraging use, they can make the product more appealing. That reality weakens a warning-based claim. But it doesn’t resolve the bigger issue.

Once the warning claims fall away, the case becomes clearer: should a product like this have been designed and sold in the first place?

That’s where modern product liability cases are headed. When a company combines an extreme product with marketing that encourages risky behavior, the focus shifts to design decisions: what the company knew, what risks were obvious, and what could have been done differently.

For lawyers and consumers alike, the takeaway is the same. Warnings only go so far. If a product is inherently dangerous in a way that could have been avoided, the law will look closely at the choices that led to that design.

This case is moving forward on that question. And that’s where the real liability will be decided.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS [ECF Nos. 72 & 74]

At Anzalone & Doyle Trial Lawyers, we represent individuals and families harmed through no fault of their own, including those injured by defective products and/or unsafe product designs, and as the result of corporate negligence. If you or a loved one has been injured or killed through the use of a defective product or corporate negligence, our attorneys are available to help you understand your legal options.