Source: https://nancynord.net/category/recalls/page/3/
Timestamp: 2020-06-01 08:48:58
Document Index: 689699960

Matched Legal Cases: ['§15', '§6', '§15', '§6', '§6', '§15']

Recalls | Conversations with Consumers | Page 3
The $57 Million Shakedown
Published January 31, 2014	Buckyballs , Consumer Product Safety , Recalls Leave a Comment
The CPSC’s action to force a recall of Buckyballs–small powerful magnets the Commission believes to be unsafe but which are still being legally sold by others—has raised many serious questions about whether the agency acted properly. But its efforts to blow up the concept of limited liability by individually suing one of the company’s founders–absent any allegation of wrongdoing–has elevated this action into one that could impact all businesses.
Recently Craig Zucker, a founder of the now-defunct company that sold Buckyballs and the object of CPSC’s ire, and I discussed this case with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Calling the long-term implications of this case shocking, the Chamber has now produced a video that details the concerns this case poses for American businesses. As a former safety regulator, a mother and, of course, a consumer, I strongly believe the agency could have addressed any safety concerns with this product without the unprecedented overreach taken in this case.
Go to FreeEnterprise.com to see the video for yourself. Here is a link:
The Side Effects of Tweaking
Published January 16, 2014	Comment Request , CPSC , Information Disclosure , Recalls Leave a Comment
Tags: CPSC, Information Sharing, Recalls
Much has been written here and in other publications about the substantive impacts of the CPSC’s proposed changes to the rules dealing with voluntary recalls. The substantive nature of the proposed amendments cannot be discounted even though certain commissioners persist in describing them as only “tweaks.”
As commenters analyze the impacts of the proposed changes, it is important to look at how these changes impact other rules that stakeholders and the commission operate under, specifically those dealing with submission of information under §15(b) and disclosure of information under §6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act. Former CPSC general counsel Cheryl Falvey has written an interesting piece that discusses that interrelationship. It is worth reading and thinking about.
Information submitted to the agency under §15(b) is exempt from disclosure except under limited circumstances as described in §6(b)(5). This protection is to provide incentive for companies to fully report information the agency needs to analyze a risk without having to worry that sensitive product information is made public unfairly or prematurely. One of the exemptions to this protection is when the Commission has accepted in writing a “remedial settlement agreement” (see §6(b)(5)(B)).
Here is the question: is the voluntary recall (or specifically the recall’s corrective action plan) a remedial settlement agreement? The regulations currently say that the recall agreement is not enforceable. The agency now proposes to make the recall agreement enforceable. Is the effect of that to make any information submitted under §15(b) subject to disclosure where it otherwise would not have been?
What is the Commission’s current position on this issue? Reading the NPR or listening to the debate does not provide any answers. But one thing is clear: with all this tweaking, some transparency is called for.
Recalling the Meaning of Recall
Published February 14, 2013	Recalls Leave a Comment
When the CPSC issues a product recall, we are using the loudest megaphone we have to alert consumers of the need to take action. Consumers know what the term “recall” means: that there is a safety problem with a product and there is a responsible party who will correct that problem with a repair, replacement, or refund, the options our statute provides. However lately, we have been redefining the term “recall” to mean something rather different from what all of us understood it to mean.
For example, we have devised the concept of the “recall to warn,” which uses our recall mechanism to get businesses in touch with their customers to provide a warning, possibly offering a warning label for consumers who wish that. Using the term “recall” is unnecessary to convey the message, and dilutes the word’s strength. But if this usage were not enough of a departure, we have added another flavor to the recall menu: a “recall to inspect.” We recently issued such a “recall” for an infant sleeper regarding mold growth.
Note well: This is not mold that was on the sleepers when they left the factory. Rather, we’ve had reports that the sleeper’s soft base and covering can grow mold if not properly cleaned after getting soiled. The thrust of our “recall” was to ask purchasers to check their products, clean up any mold, and keep the products clean. I don’t necessarily object to alerting consumers to the need for hygiene; I object to our using the recall device to do so.
Recalls suggest a product’s design or manufacture has a problem and consumers need to get the product fixed or return it. This case does not fit those criteria. The risk of mold growing in or around damp cloth is neither unique to this product, nor a flaw. The “remedy” the consumer was offered through this recall was a reminder to clean the product thoroughly if it gets damp and dirty. An instruction to clean a soiled product is not a manufacturer-delivered remedy like a return, a refund, or a repair.
This isn’t just semantics. When parents see headlines about recalls of baby products, they worry a manufacturer’s mistake could harm their children. They expect they’ll need to contact the manufacturer for a fix to the mistake—a repair kit, a new unit, or their money back. When consumers see this doesn’t fit their expectations for a recall, they may feel that our warning doesn’t match the label attached to it—that we cried, “Wolf!” At the next recall, they may assume it, too, is just a reminder about good habits and disregard it or file it away as something to check when they get around to it.
I understand and share the desire to make sure this information gets out, but doing so in a way that risks blunting our sharpest tool does not help consumers. If people are unaware of the risk of mold when this or any product is not properly cleaned, maybe we have a role to play in changing that. But that role is not “recalling” a product. Recalls are not warnings, and they are not inspections; they are recalls.
Drawstrings on Kid’s Upper Outerwear: Officially Out
Published June 29, 2011	Children's Products , Congress , Consumer Product Safety , CPSC , CPSIA , Recalls Leave a Comment
It is important because the agency has received reports for years about entanglements and strangulations involving drawstrings. When an industry voluntary standard for drawstrings, ASTM F 1816-97, was published in 1998, it led to a dramatic reduction in fatalities and yet we continued to receive incident reports.
This vote is a long time in coming because the agency should have moved sooner to make clear the agency’s position. In 2006, we posted a letter on CPSC’s website to the manufacturers, importers, and retailers of children’s upper outerwear, citing the fatalities that had occurred and urging compliance with the industry standard. Yet from 2006 to 2010, we participated in 115 recalls of non-complying products with drawstrings. While traveling in Southeast Asia last year, I heard from manufacturers and testing labs the request for the agency to clarify through rulemaking exactly what the law is. In May 2010, we published a proposed rule that would deem these children’s upper outerwear garments to be substantial product hazards. Since then I have continually urged my colleagues to finalize this rulemaking as quickly as possible so that manufacturers, importers and retailers were finally put on notice that we consider these products to be a substantial hazard.