Recall Roundup: November
Time 3 Minute Read
Categories: Product Liability

There is plenty of recall activity to report but no civil penalty news to report for November. Perhaps the holiday spirit prevails at the CPSC in this holiday season.

Hoverboards were last year’s hottest toy during the holiday season, but they also caused alarm due to the tendency of their lithium-ion battery packs to overheat while charging, causing the hoverboards to catch fire or explode. This year, the CPSC is taking a proactive approach to hoverboards. In May and again this month, hoverboards by the same manufacturer caused house fires and prompted the CPSC to warn consumers to stop using those hoverboards altogether. Further, a hoverboard by a different manufacturer recently caught fire and caused $40,000 of property damage to a consumer’s home. These serious reports culminated in the CPSC issuing seven recalls this month for hoverboards by different manufacturers due to their potential fire and explosion hazards.

Fatalities led to two additional recalls this month. First, the CPSC recalled fire extinguishers after emergency responders to a fatal car accident could not get one to work. Second, the CPSC again recalled dressers after a dresser tipped over, trapped and killed a two-year-old child. This tragic incident is the eighth child tip-over related death with the manufacturer’s recalled dressers and chests.

November ushered in a new development in the long saga over magnet sets, or clusters of small, separable, magnetic balls that a consumer can rearrange into countless shapes. In 2012, distributors refused to voluntarily recall the magnet sets so the CPSC filed administrative complaints against them, alleging that the magnet sets were defective and presented a substantial product hazard because of the risk that young children would ingest the loose magnets. While most distributors settled the cases and conducted recalls, one distributor chose to fight. In 2016, an administrative law judge determined that the CPSC staff did not prove that the magnet sets were defective or constituted a substantial product hazard when sold with appropriate warnings and proper age recommendations. The CPSC staff appealed that decision to the CPSC, who previously approved the filing of the administrative complaints. Predictably, this month the CPSC issued its decision setting aside the administrative law judge’s ruling. The CPSC concluded that the magnet sets pose a substantial product hazard that cannot be mitigated by package warnings and ordered the distributor to recall the magnet sets.

Total Recalls: 29

Hazards: Fire/Burn/Shock (9); Violation of Federal Standard (5); Injury (2); Fall (2); Choke (1); Strangulation (1); Tip-Over (1); Laceration (2); Failure to Discharge (1); Impact (2); (1) Injury; (1) Failure to Meet Child Resistant Closure Requirement; (1) Mold Exposure

Click on the below chart for additional information.

  • Partner

    Kelly practices as a commercial and regulatory litigator on products liability and post M&A disputes and issues and serves as one of the firm’s Deputy General Counsel focusing on law firm ethics, conflicts, and risk management ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 2 Minute Read

On March 5, 2026, the California Privacy Protection Agency announced that the agency had reached a settlement with Ford Motor Company resolving an enforcement action against the company that alleged noncompliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act’s opt-out of sale/sharing rights.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court decision determined that documents created by a criminal defendant using AI and subsequently shared with legal counsel were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In USA v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York compelled the disclosure of 31 documents created with Anthropic’s Claude. This order was issued despite the defendant including information from counsel in the AI tool’s input and later providing the resulting outputs to his attorneys. The ruling offers early judicial perspective on privilege concerns involving AI-generated materials, an area where case law remains sparse.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page