Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


Buckyballs head emerges from two years of litigation

He will perform a recall of the toys, and is not required to claim that they are a hazard

Buckyballs — the small magnetic balls that can mold into different shapes and are used to relieve stress or for game activities — have been in the spotlight for the last two years for more reasons than just their amusing nature and genius design. The toys have been the subject of multiple lawsuits, amounting to about $57 million in potential penalties for the person behind the invention: Craig Zucker. But Zucker has managed to emerge from two years of litigation relatively unscathed considering the initial potential consequences.

His penalty, ultimately, according to Inc., is $375,000 and a recall of the magnetic toys. He does not have to admit that they were defective or posed threats as product hazards despite many lawsuits involving cases where children ingested the individual magnet balls that then required them to undergo surgery after the pellets connected through their organs.

Zucker has been under fire from the Consumer Product Safety Commission for the past two years for these claims, but has just settled the case and been relieved of any personal liability. Zucker has to fund a recall of all Buckyballs, and will have to waive his right to pursue legal action against the CPSC.

Much of Zucker’s argument against the CPSC is that the organization cannot hold one individual accountable for the product safety requirements of a device dubbed a hazard. He also claims that he collaborated with regulators to minimize the risks Buckyballs have towards children. The Washington Post quotes him:

“The law does not support an individual being named in a case like this and I hope that this settlement will discourage the CPSC from wrongfully pursuing individual officers and entrepreneurs again in the future.”

Zucker’s two-year holdout seems to have worked. He managed to pay very little of the initial claims set against him, and will simply perform a recall.


Further reading:


GM shakes up corporate culture in wake of ignition switch issues

Economic loss is focus of Bankruptcy Court proceeding related to GM recall 

Social media can cause problems for lawyers when it comes to ethics, professional responsibility

Contributing Author

author image

Juliana Kenny

Juliana Kenny is a contributor to, covering a range of topics including patent litigation, conflict mineral laws, executive compensation, and antitrust regulation. Juliana earned B.A.s...

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.