Humanoid robots have been promising a silent revolution in homes for years: human-shaped machines capable of taking on everyday tasks, interacting with their environment and coexisting with people as if they were an advanced appliance. The race to build ‘universal assistants’ has even reached Spain and already has an interesting range of possibilities, but one of the companies that stands out the most is Figure AI.
This Californian company, founded by Brett Adcock, has become one of the visible faces of the new generation of mechanical assistants.
His proposal is articulated around three generations of robots: Figure 01, its first prototype; Figure 02, a more advanced model focused on precise manipulation; and Figure 03, the most recent evolution designed for large-scale production and future homes.
Their goal is for these robots to integrate into daily life without friction. Its risk, as has just been discovered, the power they hide under their metal skeleton.
At the height of interest in humanoids—also driven by advances in generative AI and improvements in autonomous mobility—a new scandal once again puts the focus on the safety of these machines. And this time it comes from within the company itself.
The former security official denounces that Figure 02 can fracture a human skull
Table of Contents
On November 21, 2025, Robert Gruendel—the company’s former head of product safety—filed a federal lawsuit in California accusing Figure AI of ignoring critical warnings about the actual power of its robots. According to his statement, the model at the center of the problem is the Figure 02, a humanoid capable of generating enough force to fracture the skull of an adult in case of direct impact.
Gruendel relates that, during internal tests, one of the robots accidentally hit a refrigerator with enough force to dent itan incident that, if it had occurred against a person, would have had serious consequences. He also claims that both CEO Brett Adcock and chief engineer Kyle Edelberg minimized these risks even after a multi-million dollar funding round and that their proposed security roadmap was directly eliminated.
Shortly after raising his warnings, Gruendel was fired. He maintains that it is retaliation, while the company defends that the decision is due to poor performance. Beyond the labor conflict, the complaint points to an underlying problem: the possibility that an apparently harmless domestic robot could execute movements with lethal force.
What does the complaint say?
The complaint states that, From the beginning, there were no formal security procedures, incident reports or specific risk assessment. The only external security officer was a contractor with no experience in robotics.
According to Gruendel, managers tolerated failures, They ruled out key controls such as an emergency stop button in a previous phase (E-Stop) because they “did not like them aesthetically” and modified the security plan before presenting it to investors, which he interprets as a potentially fraudulent practice.
What Figure AI claims
The company completely rejects the former engineer’s version. In its official response, Figure AI assures that the accusations are “false” and that it plans to defend itself “firmly” in court. According to the company, Robert Gruendel’s dismissal had nothing to do with his safety warnings, but rather with alleged poor performance in his position.
In its statements, the firm insists that its team works under rigorous standards and that safety is part of the design of each of its models. It also highlights that the complainant is presenting a distorted image of the internal process with statements that, according to them, do not reflect the reality of development of the robot Figure 02, the humanoid questioned in the complaint.
Figure AI defends itself by arguing that it is immersed in an accelerated innovation process, but flatly denies cutting essential controls or deliberately disregarding risks in its robots. For the company, the lawsuit is an attempt to discredit its work at a time of high media visibility.
The arrival of humanoids at home opens an urgent debate on security
Figure AI aims to deploy tens of thousands of its models—including the even more advanced Figure 03—in real-world environments in the coming years. But this case exposes the risks of accelerating humanoid adoption without a clear external oversight framework. To move weight, manipulate objects, and operate with precision, these robots need powerful motors… and that same power can pose a danger if something goes wrong or if the design doesn’t incorporate redundant brakes and controls.
The case of Figure 02 illustrates this tension between innovation and security. If a robot capable of living together in a room can, under certain circumstances, generate enough force to cause serious injuries, the conversation about regulations, audits and liabilities becomes inevitable. The industry is moving fast, but legislation and safety protocols are still lagging behind.
