Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Case of the Quiet Recall: CPSC's 2004 Civil Penalty Cases Hit 'Do-It-Yourself' Corrective Actions
In 1997, a company named Sun-It (a subsidiary of E&B Giftware) manufactured and distributed some 47,000 citronella candles known as the “Money to Burn Torch.” As it happened, the wrapper surrounding the candle collected superheated melted wax. Some consumers reported to Sun-It that they had suffered serious burns when they blew on the candles or bumped into them. Others said that they had been burned when the candles unexpectedly flared. In all, over a period of 5 months, Sun-It received notice of 14 incidents in which consumers claimed to have suffered serious burns and permanent scarring after having been scalded by hot wax from the candles. Sun-It responded to these reports by stopping sale of the candles and recalling candles that remained in retail inventories. Nearly 17,000 candles, including roughly 3300 in unshipped inventory ' more than a third of the total production ' were recalled and destroyed.
In January 2004, almost 7 years after the recall, E&B Giftware ' without admitting any wrongdoing ' agreed to pay the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) a civil penalty of $100,000. Why was the company penalized? According to E&B Giftware, it did nothing wrong. (The facts of the E&B case, as well as the other cases referenced in this article, are based on the staff's allegations, as set out in the Federal Register notices reporting the civil penalty agreements. Each company denied that it violated the CPSA.) However, the CPSC staff disagreed, contending that the 14 incident reports “reasonably supported the conclusion that the candles … contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury,” and that E&B Giftware had a statutory obligation, under Section 15b of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), to report this information to the CPSC when it was received in 1997.
The January action was one of several CPSC cases announced in 2004 that targeted “do it yourself” corrective actions, in which companies attempted to fix problems without notifying the CPSC.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?