A New Era in CPSC Enforcement: CPSC Invokes Section 12 for the First Time Since 1987

A powerful tool in product safety enforcement, which lay dormant for almost 40 years, has been dusted off and resurrected. On July 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or the Commission) filed an imminent hazard lawsuit under Section 12 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). Under Section 12, CPSC can file an action in federal district court requesting that a product be declared “imminently hazardous,” meaning that it “presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.” The court may grant relief necessary to protect the public from the hazardous product, which can include a mandatory recall of the product.

The DOJ filed the complaint against Cixi Miaojie Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd. and Changsha Jiayi Tianzhuo Trading Co. Ltd., the manufacturer and seller of Lakkzoom immersion water heaters in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. According to the government’s allegations, the defendants’ immersion heaters, which were marketed and sold on a “major e-commerce platform,” can overheat and catch fire “within minutes” when energized while completely or partially out of water. At the same time the complaint was filed, CPSC also issued a unilateral safety warning urging consumers to stop using the Lakkzoom immersion water heaters because “the heaters can quickly ignite within minutes when they are partially or completely out of water.” CPSC is reportedly aware of 235 incidents of fires involving the immersion water heaters. Notably, neither the complaint nor the unilateral safety warning indicate whether CPSC requested that the defendants voluntarily recall the Lakkzoom immersion heaters prior to taking these actions, and if so, whether the defendants responded.

The complaint alleges that the Lakkzoom immersion heaters do not comply with UL 499, Standard for Electric Heating Appliances-2025, the voluntary safety standard applicable to the product. While not a mandatory requirement, the complaint states that “failure to comply with this voluntary safety standard is evidence that the products present a risk of fire.” According to the complaint, CPSC conducted a series of tests to characterize the risk presented by the immersion heaters under different conditions that allegedly “mimicked” consumers’ patterns of use. The government alleges that CPSC testing confirms that the immersion heaters present an imminent and unreasonable risk of death or severe personal injury under several different known conditions of consumer use, including the “likely” scenario where the heater is not fully submerged in water.

Further, CPSC allegedly tested other currently available immersion heaters that offer an alternative safer design and are reportedly available for purchase at a similar price as the defendants’ products.

In addition to the potential hazards the product may present, the complaint cites to several allegedly misleading statements that the defendants have made related to the safety of the product. These statements include claims about the “safe design” of the products, and that the immersion heaters are “UL listed,” despite not complying with the UL standard. While the product contains warnings about using the heater outside of water, the complaint states that these statements “do not adequately advise consumers of the risk of fire.”

Relief Sought

The government asks the court for a declaration that the defendant’s immersion heaters are “imminently hazardous consumer products” as well as an injunction ordering the defendants to:

• Stop the sale and further importation of the heaters into the United States
• Notify the public of the hazards associated with the heaters
• Directly notify all known consumer purchasers of hazards of the heaters
• Conduct a mandatory recall of the heaters
• Provide consumers with a means of obtaining a full refund

Given that whether defendants maintain a presence in the United States remains unclear, so too does the practical impact of the requested relief, even if the government is successful in obtaining it.

Take-Aways

Acting Chairman Feldman has long called for CPSC to expand its use of enforcement authorities, and according to CPSC’s press release announcing the action, CPSC has established a Section 12 Task Force “to identify appropriate cases and develop Section 12 into a meaningful component of the Commission’s enforcement program.” The establishment of a Section 12 Task Force is consistent with CPSC’s Fiscal Year 2026 Operations Plan, which identified pursuing “litigation and imminent hazard actions where appropriate, particularly in cases involving firms unwilling to conduct a voluntary recall” as a priority activity. Additionally, the filing of this lawsuit indicates that the CPSC and DOJ are willing to take aggressive enforcement action notwithstanding the current lack of quorum at the Commission and previous signals that the Trump administration planned to eliminate CPSC as an independent agency and transfer its functions to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Our team will be following the litigation closely. If you have any questions about CPSC enforcement, including under Section 12 of the CPSA, please reach out to the authors or any of their colleagues on Arnold & Porter’s 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.