Reuters Money

Some unhappy customers of Benjamin Moore & Co. are making a federal case of a line of paints that they say stinks. Literally.

A lawsuit seeking class action status was filed against Benjamin Moore, a division of Berkshire Hathaway, accusing the company of falsely marketing its Natura brand line of interior paints as giving off virtually no odor and drying so fast you’d barely be exposed to what odor there is. It was also described as “the greenest paint available.”

“Benjamin Moore specifically marketed this product as odorless, quick-drying, and a good choice for consumers concerned about indoor air quality,” said Eric Somers, a partner with Lexington Law Group, which filed the suit in U.S. District Court in New Jersey. “No one would have purchased the defective paint had they known that the paint would create horrible foul odors in their homes.”

The lawsuit said the higher-priced paint, rather than be odor-free, emitted such a stench that it actually forced some people to move out of their homes. And, the suit said, the paint sometimes remained wet to the touch for months.

Benjamin Moore is accused of knowing there were problems with the paint line, but did nothing to alert consumers. Instead, the lawsuit said Benjamin Moore told retailers last summer that a new version of the product was available to replace their existing stock. It didn’t mention any of the problems.

Benjamin Moore spokeswoman Eileen McComb said she was traveling and was unable to provide an immediate response to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Benjamin Moore Natura users nationwide, uses the story of California resident Marlene Sway. She bought the paint in 2009 and complained to the company to no avail about how it remained wet and created a foul stench. She and her family fled their home over the smell and, according to the lawsuit, haven’t returned.

Although some consumers have defended the paint online, complaints about the paint are scattered about a variety of websites.

“Had plaintiff and the other members of the class known that the product was not odorless and quick-drying as represented by defendant, they would not have purchased the product and certainly would not have paid more for the product than for comparable paints,” the lawsuit said.

“In fact, even absent defendant’s misrepresentations that the product is odorless and dries quickly, no reasonable consumer would purchase the product if he or she knew that it emits an offensive, acute and enduring odor and that the product does not dry completely even months after it is applied.”