CPSC Pivots in the Name of Pragmatism: Why the Agency Walked Away From the Leachco Case
The initiation of administrative litigation by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or the Commission) to compel a consumer-product recall is relatively rare, and a decision by the agency to walk away from such litigation even rarer. But on March 16, 2026, CPSC did just that, issuing an order that vacated an administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) Initial Decision, dismissed CPSC’s own Complaint, and closed the books on a years-long enforcement proceeding against Leachco, Inc. — the Oklahoma-based maker of the Podster infant lounger.
The move is notable not only because the Commission, currently comprising a single member, effectively sided with Leachco, but also because the Commission declined to decide the case on the merits at all.
Background: The Podster and CPSC’s Safety Concerns
The Podster is an infant lounge pillow with contoured sides marketed for daytime use with awake infants. Leachco manufactured approximately 180,000 units between 2009 and 2022.
As detailed in our July 2024 post on the Leachco case, CPSC issued a unilateral press release in January 2022 warning consumers to stop using the Podster following two reports of infant suffocation deaths. Thereafter, the Commission — including current Acting Chairman Feldman — voted in February 2022 to authorize the filing of an administrative Complaint against Leachco. The Complaint alleged that the Podster lounging pillows present a substantial product hazard, claiming that it is foreseeable that caregivers would allow infants to sleep unattended on the pillows and that their design can allow an infant to move into a position in which the infant’s breathing is obstructed, potentially leading to suffocation, notwithstanding product warnings that the Podster should not be used for sleep.1 Leachco’s Answer denied the Complaint’s allegations of defect and substantial product hazard.2
In an Initial Decision issued July 3, 2024, the ALJ dismissed the Complaint, finding that Complaint Counsel had not met its burden to show that the Podster is defective or that a defect in the Podster creates a substantial risk of injury to the public, and on that basis declined to find a substantial product hazard or impose any remedies.3 Complaint Counsel appealed, and Leachco cross-appealed (arguing that, even though the ALJ had come to the correct conclusion on the ultimate matter, the ALJ had erred by admitting certain testimony, while also reiterating a constitutional objection to the ALJ’s authority that the ALJ had denied).
Though the parties completed the appeal briefing in November 2024, there was no movement on the matter in calendar year 2025. Then, after four years of litigation and more than a year of silence, the Commission issued the March 16 Order vacating the ALJ’s Initial Decision, dismissing the Complaint, and remanding the matter to the ALJ with instructions to close the case.
Why the Commission Dismissed Its Own Case
The Commission’s reasoning rested on its cost-benefit analysis of the continued pursuit of the appeal in the context of CPSC enforcement priorities and finite agency resources, stating that:
In practice, because agency resources are not unlimited, the Commission must prioritize agency resources to maximize the public safety impact of its enforcement efforts…. Moreover, when circumstances change, the Commission may need to reassess its priorities and redeploy agency resources to higher-impact enforcement efforts or other emerging safety issues.4
Three considerations, in particular, informed the Commission’s decision that continued litigation was no longer warranted:
1. A New Federal Safety Standard Changed the Landscape
In October 2024 — shortly after the ALJ’s decision — the Commission issued a final rule establishing a comprehensive mandatory safety standard for infant support cushions (codified at 16 C.F.R. Part 1243 and effective May 5, 2025), which mandates detailed performance requirements intended to address the very types of suffocation risks identified in the administrative Complaint. In the Commission’s view, this regulatory development substantially altered the calculus.
The new federal standard adopted a broad definition of “infant support cushion,” encompassing infant positioners, loungers, pillows, and similar products. The March 16 Order asserts that the Podster would be regulated under the new rule if manufactured today. Given that the risks the Complaint against Leachco sought to address are now governed by a mandatory federal rule and applicable industry-wide, the Commission determined that “agency resources are best spent on other enforcement priorities and that it is no longer in the public interest to continue pursuing this administrative proceeding.”
2. The Practical Value of a Remedial Order Was Unclear
In the Commission’s analysis, the “potential public safety impact of [a remedial order] is unclear” given the passage of time, considering that:
- Leachco stopped selling the Podster in 2022 and cannot lawfully resume manufacturing without complying with the new standard.
- Only about 180,000 units were distributed in the market, beginning in 2009, and the Commission questioned how many units remain in active use as much as 17 years after purchase.
- Identifying and notifying current consumers about the defect and remedy would be a logistical challenge.5
The Commission thus found that “a remedial order requiring public notice and a refund is of unknown public safety benefit,” especially given that the agency already issued a “prominent warning to the public to immediately stop using the Podster” in January 2022.6
3. Agency Resources Are Finite
The Commission acknowledged that its enforcement resources are limited. Continuing to litigate a complex administrative appeal (and potentially defend against a further challenge in federal court) would consume significant resources at a substantial opportunity cost, as those resources could not be used to pursue other enforcement priorities, including enforcement of the new federal standard for infant support cushions.
Key Takeaways
- The CPSC’s closure of the Leachco proceeding is less a victory for any party than a pragmatic pivot.
- The new infant support cushion standard is the operative framework. For manufacturers, importers, and retailers in this space, 16 C.F.R. Part 1243 is now the law. The Leachco case’s dismissal does not diminish CPSC’s enforcement posture under that rule.
- In vacating the ALJ’s Initial Decision and Order dismissing the matter in favor of Leachco, CPSC has taken the position that the Initial Decision and Order has no precedential effect and should not be cited as reflecting the view of the Commission on how defect and substantial product hazard questions should be analyzed. The Commission not only abandoned Complaint Counsel’s appeal of the Initial Decision but took the additional step of vacating that decision “to ensure [that it] does not acquire lasting effect simply because intervening events prevented Commission consideration on the merits and to avoid treating the decision as though it had been affirmed on the merits.”7
- Enforcement discretion remains a powerful agency tool. The Commission’s decision is a reminder that, even after years of litigation, “when circumstances change, the Commission may need to reassess its priorities and redeploy agency resources to higher-impact enforcement efforts or other emerging safety issues.”8
For questions about compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Act, CPSC enforcement practices, or other product safety matters, please reach out to the authors of this post, who are part of Arnold & Porter’s leading Consumer Product Safety team.
© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.
Authors
