SanDisk SSD Data Loss Lawsuit: Extreme and Extreme Pro Drive Failures

The case targets a group of portable solid state drives that SanDisk and Western Digital built on an internal hardware platform called Atlas Refresh (Atlas-R). According to the court's class certification order, the drives on that platform were the 4TB SanDisk Extreme Portable SSD, the 1TB, 2TB, and 4TB SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable SSD, and the 4TB WD My Passport Portable SSD. The court calls them the "Impacted Drives." They first went into production in October and November 2022.

The buyers who sued say the drives were marketed as fast, reliable, and durable, but carried a firmware defect that could make them stop mounting and leave data "corrupt[ed] or missing entirely." The technical story laid out in the plaintiffs' expert report, and summarized by the judge, goes like this:

• To save power, the Atlas-R platform shut the SSD's internal storage module down when the drive sat idle.
• When the computer checked on the drive, the bridge chip opened a new session and later had to close it using a session ID.
• Sometimes the bridge chip misread that ID, got stuck in a loop of failed close commands, and could write data over the drive's partition master boot record.
• Once that record was corrupted, the computer no longer recognized the drive at all.

The court's order says failures showed up when an affected drive stayed connected and idle for several hours. The parties agree the problem happened on Macs and dispute whether it happened on Windows, although the order notes an internal company presentation reporting that the defect was reproduced on Windows.

The defendants are SanDisk LLC, SanDisk Manufacturing Americas, Western Digital Corporation, and Western Digital Technologies, Inc. The plaintiffs' legal claims include breach of implied and express warranty, fraud by omission, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, plus Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. SanDisk and Western Digital dispute the claims. None of the allegations have been proven at trial.

The first suits were filed in August 2023, including Perrin v. SanDisk LLC and Jafri v. SanDisk LLC, both on August 17, 2023. Judge Rita F. Lin consolidated them on October 25, 2023 under the lead case number 3:23-cv-04152. On June 5, 2024, she granted part of SanDisk's motion to dismiss and let other claims go forward, and the plaintiffs filed the operative Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 21, 2024.

The big ruling came in spring 2026. On May 6, 2026, Judge Lin certified two classes under Rule 23(b)(3): all California residents and all Florida residents who purchased an Impacted Drive since 2020. She refused to certify a nationwide class, because the consumer protection and common law claims turn on different state laws, and she refused a New York class because no named plaintiff from New York had actually bought an affected drive. She also appointed Silver Golub & Teitell LLP and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as class counsel.

After that, the plaintiffs asked again for a narrower class seeking a court order (injunctive relief) requiring SanDisk to fix the drives. On July 13, 2026, the judge denied that renewed motion, finding the proposed group still included many people who would never trigger the firmware bug. In late May 2026 the court referred the case to private mediation, which is where settlement talks usually happen. As of September 2026 no settlement has been announced.

For background on what certification means for you as a class member, see our guide to what class certification is.

Qualification right now depends mostly on where you lived and which drive you bought. The certified class definitions are short:

You do not have to sign up to be in a certified class; if you fit the definition, you are in it unless you opt out after a court-approved notice goes out. No class notice has been sent yet as of September 2026.

You probably do not qualify for the certified classes if:

• You own an older SanDisk Extreme or Extreme Pro that was not built on the Atlas-R platform, or a capacity not on the list above.
• You bought your drive outside California and Florida.
• You bought it used from a private seller.

That does not necessarily end things for buyers elsewhere. If you lost valuable data or paid for recovery, you may have an individual warranty or state consumer law claim, and an attorney can tell you whether it is worth pursuing. Our guide on how to join a class action lawsuit explains the difference between being in a class and bringing your own case.

Nobody can say yet what a SanDisk SSD buyer will receive, because there is no settlement or verdict. What the court record does show is how the plaintiffs plan to measure damages. Their damages expert designed a conjoint survey to estimate a price premium: the extra amount buyers paid because they did not know about the defect. The judge declined to throw out that model at the class certification stage.

That matters because a price premium recovery is usually a slice of the purchase price, not the full cost of the drive and not the value of lost files. Defendants estimated there were potentially 145,000 Impacted Drives, which gives a sense of the class size nationwide, though only California and Florida buyers are currently in certified classes.

Lost data is the harder part. One named plaintiff testified he spent around $6,000 on third-party data recovery with only limited success. Individual losses like that are not part of the certified class claims, which focus on overpayment. People with large recovery bills or lost business work may want to talk with an attorney about whether an individual claim makes more sense than waiting on the class.

According to the court's order, SanDisk's customer support offered refunds and data recovery services to customers who asked. If you never asked, it may still be worth contacting support and keeping a record of the answer.

The certified claims rest on the idea that SanDisk knew about the defect and did not tell buyers. That is an omission theory, and it is easier to prove on a class-wide basis than a claim that each buyer read and relied on a specific ad.

• California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Bans deceptive practices in consumer sales. A CLRA action must be filed within three years of the deceptive act under Civil Code section 1783.
• California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL). Allow restitution of money obtained through unfair or misleading business practices. UCL claims carry a four-year limitations period under Business and Professions Code section 17208.
• Implied warranty of merchantability. A product must be fit for its ordinary purpose. A storage drive that can erase its own partition record arguably fails that test.
• Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). Florida's general consumer protection statute, which lets consumers recover actual damages for unfair or deceptive practices.

Federal warranty law can also play a role in product defect cases. Our Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act guide covers how written and implied warranties work for consumer products.

There is no claim deadline yet because there is no settlement. Two kinds of timing still matter.

First, the statute of limitations for anyone not covered by the certified classes. The drives went into production in late 2022 and failures were reported through early 2023, so many state limitations periods of three or four years are already running out or have run out for those purchases. A pending class action can pause (toll) the clock for people who fall inside a proposed class, but the rules vary and are technical. If you are outside California and Florida and are thinking about your own claim, treat 2026 as the year to get an answer rather than waiting.

Second, notice deadlines. If the case settles or heads to trial, the court will approve a notice with dates to opt out, object, or file a claim. Those deadlines are typically set weeks or months after the notice goes out, so read any notice promptly. We will update this page when a notice is issued.

The case is limited to specific models and capacities, so start with the label on the back of the drive or the original box.

The court's order says the drives on the Atlas-R platform went into production in October and November 2022. SanDisk approved a stop-ship for the 4TB Extreme and Extreme Pro drives on February 17, 2023, and completed a firmware fix on March 15, 2023 for drives not yet shipped or sold, but the order says there was no recall of drives already in customers' hands. That timing matters: a drive made after the fix may never have carried the faulty firmware, while one bought in late 2022 or early 2023 is more likely to be affected.

SanDisk's support page offered a serial number lookup tool to check whether a particular drive needs the update. Running it gives you a dated record of whether your drive was on the affected list, which can also help if a settlement later asks for proof. If your drive already failed and no longer mounts, do not keep plugging it in and out; note the date it failed and what you were doing, then set it aside.

1. Stop using the drive and do not reformat it. Reformatting can make recovery harder and removes evidence of the failure.
2. Check whether it needs the firmware update. SanDisk published a firmware updater and a serial number lookup tool in mid 2023. Updating a working drive may prevent future failures.
3. Write down the model and serial number and save your receipt or order history.
4. Keep every support email and RMA record, and any invoice for data recovery.
5. Do not sign a release in exchange for a replacement drive without reading it. Some releases waive future claims.
6. Watch for a class notice if you live in California or Florida. You will not need to file anything until there is a settlement or judgment.

If you lost important data, paid for recovery, or live outside the certified states, you can have your situation looked at by independent attorneys who handle consumer product cases. A free case review takes about two minutes. You can also browse other lawsuits you may be able to join, including the Apple lawsuit page for other tech device claims.