Under its newly confirmed leadership, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s enforcement posture continues to evolve. This article provides an overview of CPSC’s targeted enforcement, which is increasing even as traditional rulemaking recedes. It then addresses three recent enforcement developments: heightened Section 15(b) late-reporting penalties, intensified scrutiny of imported products and foreign sellers, the revival of Section 12 imminent hazard litigation for the first time in 40 years, and ongoing litigation with e-commerce marketplaces. Finally, we offer practical guidance for manufacturers, importers, retailers and online marketplaces seeking to maintain compliance in this shifting policy environment—including steps to strengthen internal reporting systems, audit supply chain and import compliance, and prepare for adversarial enforcement.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has entered a new phase. With a restored Republican-majority and quorum, the agency is recalibrating its priorities—and companies expecting a quieter enforcement environment may be surprised.
A Different Kind of Enforcement Agenda
The CPSC’s new leadership has moved quickly to set a different tone. Within weeks of taking over as Acting Chairman in early 2025, the Commission began rolling back several measures—including proposed rules on table saws, and recreational off-highway vehicles and abandoning efforts to regulate gas stove emissions—while making clear it would intensify enforcement activities.
The Commission’s approach reflects more targeted enforcement coupled with a more restrained approach to rulemaking—focusing resources on areas where existing statutory authority is strongest, particularly mandatory reporting obligations, import safety, and imminent hazard litigation.
Companies that assumed deregulation might mean less scrutiny may find themselves caught off guard. The areas where CPSC is increasing its focus—reporting compliance, import oversight, and hazard-based litigation—are precisely those where violations can result in substantial penalties, injunctive relief, and negative publicity.
Late Reporting Remains an Expensive Compliance Risk
The current Commission continues to actively pursue substantial civil penalties for alleged late reporting violations. Under Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers must report to the CPSC immediately when they obtain information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with a consumer product safety rule or voluntary standard.
The obligation to report may be triggered when a company first obtains information regarding a noncompliance or potential hazard. The 24-hour reporting deadline begins immediately. Although companies may conduct a brief investigation, delaying reporting while investigating root cause—even in good faith—risks substantial civil penalties.
The CPSC has historically used its civil penalty authority aggressively here, and recent consent agreements have resulted in penalties in the millions of dollars, with late reporting treated as an aggravating factor.
In recent enforcement actions, the Commission has assessed penalties not only for the initial failure to report but also for other violations such as the sale of recalled goods or misrepresentations, treating each violation as a basis for a separate penalty. This approach can quickly multiply the potential exposure for companies that do not have robust internal reporting systems in place.
The takeaway is straightforward: civil penalties for late reporting remains one of CPSC’s robust enforcement tools, in addition to referrals to the Department of Justice to seek criminal penalties. Companies should ensure that their internal compliance systems are designed to identify reportable information quickly and escalate it to the appropriate decision-makers without delay.
Unsafe Imports and Foreign Sellers Are in the Crosshairs
The volume of consumer products entering the United States through e-commerce has grown dramatically, and the CPSC views imports as a significant safety challenge—particularly products sold by foreign-based sellers through online marketplaces that have never been tested for compliance with U.S. safety standards.
The Commission has increased physical inspections at ports of entry, expanded risk-based targeting to identify suspicious shipments, and improved data sharing with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The agency also recently launched its eFiling program, requiring importers to provide electronic certificate of compliance data for regulated consumer products at entry—a measure expected to significantly enhance the CPSC’s ability to screen imports.
In addition, the Commission has stepped up unilateral safety alerts about unsafe imports, allowing it to act quickly to prevent sales or importation even before a formal recall is initiated.
An Old Enforcement Tool Gets New Life
Perhaps the most striking development in the current enforcement landscape is the Commission’s renewal of litigation under Section 12 of the Consumer Product Safety Act. Section 12 authorizes the Commission to pursue an action in federal district court whenever it determines that a consumer product presents an imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.
Unlike the Section 15 defect investigations, which typically involve negotiations between the company and the Commission staff, a Section 12 action is adversarial litigation in federal court brought by the Department of Justice on the Commission’s behalf.
Until recently, Section 12 was rarely used—the Commission had not brought such an action in decades. That changed when the Commission announced its first use of its Section 12 imminent hazard authority in nearly 40 years.
The revival of Section 12 sends a clear signal: when the Commission believes a product poses an imminent hazard and the manufacturer is not cooperating, it will go to court. This changes the dynamics of recall negotiations significantly.
For companies in a dispute with the Commission over a proposed voluntary recall, the question is no longer simply whether CPSC will issue an administrative order—a years-long process. Section 12 provides a faster, more public answer that is potentially more damaging to reputation and bottom line.
Ongoing Litigation with e-Commerce Marketplaces
Another sign of the Commission’s enforcement posture is its multi-year litigation with Amazon, over whether the company was responsible for additional recall measures for third-party products sold through its fulfilled-by program. The company is now challenging the Commission’s decision and order in federal district court. It may be tempting to dismiss this complex matter as an outlier, but it is a sign of the Commission’s resolve in pursuing recall remedies in areas it deems important for consumer safety.
What Businesses Should Do Now
The current enforcement environment calls for proactive compliance. Companies that manufacture, import, distribute, or sell consumer products should take concrete steps to manage regulatory risk. Effective compliance programs do not need to be built overnight—or be perfect from the start.
First, strengthen internal reporting systems. Ensure clear procedures for identifying Section 15(b) triggers and train employees at all levels to recognize and escalate them promptly. The cost of a late report can dwarf the cost of a robust reporting system.
Second, audit your supply chain and import compliance. If you import consumer products, ensure that your products have been tested by an accredited laboratory and that valid certificates of compliance are on file. Review your third-party seller verification processes if you operate an online marketplace. The CPSC’s focus on imports and foreign sellers means that gaps in your import compliance program are more likely to be detected and penalized than at any time in the recent past.
Third, prepare for the possibility of adversarial enforcement. The revival of Section 12 means that companies cannot assume that all enforcement interactions with the CPSC will be resolved through cooperative negotiation. Develop a litigation preparedness plan that includes identifying key decision-makers, preserving relevant documents, and establishing relationships with outside counsel who have experience before the Commission and in federal court.
Finally, monitor regulatory developments actively. The CPSC’s enforcement priorities are evolving rapidly. Subscribe to Commission notices, monitor consent agreements and enforcement actions, and participate in industry groups that track CPSC activity. Early awareness of enforcement trends can help you identify and address potential compliance gaps before they become problems.
Taking these steps will not eliminate regulatory risk, but it will position your organization to respond effectively when issues arise. A strong product safety compliance program is both a shield against enforcement and a signal to the Commission that your company takes its obligations seriously.
The Bottom Line
The new CPSC is selectively deregulatory rather than broadly deregulatory. It is pulling back on rulemaking while leaning into enforcement. It is reviving tools that had been dormant for decades—most notably Section 12 imminent hazard litigation—and applying them in ways that are more aggressive and more public than anything the industry has seen in a generation.
The companies most at risk in this environment are those that mistake deregulation for a green light to delay further investments in improving their existing compliance systems. The companies best positioned are those that maintain strong internal reporting systems, robust supply chain oversight, and a demonstrated commitment to product safety—regardless of who occupies the Commission’s leadership.
Political leadership will change. A well-designed product safety compliance program should remain constant.
In short, the current Commission’s enforcement philosophy rewards preparation and punishes complacency. Companies that treat the present regulatory environment as an opportunity to defer compliance investments may find themselves exposed when leadership changes or when they become the subject of an enforcement action under the current regime. The better course is to build durable product safety systems now—systems designed not for the political moment, but for the long term.
