When you purchase a product, you should be able to expect that it is safe and will work as it should. There are several agencies that protect citizens from harmful products in the United States, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Most of these agencies have broad authority to act when they determine that a product is dangerous to the public.<\/p>
Unfortunately, one agency \u2014 the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)<\/a> \u2014 is hamstrung in ways that other agencies are not. This is due to a controversial law that was passed in the 1980s known as Section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)<\/a>.<\/p>\n The CPSA was passed by Congress in 1972. However, Section 6(b) wasn\u2019t added until almost a decade later. The original act created the CPSC and granted it the power to regulate consumer goods not covered by other agencies. Thus, the CPSC doesn\u2019t regulate canned food because that is regulated by the FDA, for example. Until 6(b) was added, the CPSC had nearly unrestricted authority to advise the public about dangerous products. Section 6(b) places significant limits on that authority.<\/p>\n The new restrictions added by this section limit how the CPSC can disclose product and manufacturer information to the public. According to these restrictions, the CPSC needs to advise a manufacturer before it warns the public about a defective product. The manufacturer can object to the wording of that warning or any of the information included.<\/p>\n If the manufacturer and the CPSC can\u2019t agree to the details of the warning, the manufacturer has the right to sue in order to block its release. No other federal regulatory agency is limited in the same way. The result of this limitation is that the CPSC has to wait weeks \u2014 and sometimes years \u2014 before it can inform the public that a manufacturer is selling a dangerous product.<\/p>\n One of the main duties of the CPSC is to publicize recalls<\/a> when it determines that a product is dangerous. For example, the CPSC issued a public recall for Samsung washing machines<\/a> after some units built between 2011 and 2016 exploded. The sooner these recalls can be publicized, the fewer people are likely to get hurt or killed.<\/b> But because Section 6(b) allows manufacturers to delay this notification, people may get hurt in the time between when the CPSC determines there is a danger and when it can notify the public.<\/p>\n And this isn\u2019t only a theoretical concept. After the CPSC determined that a Peloton treadmill was responsible for the death of a child in early 2021, the company fought back against efforts to recall the product. Even after the company eventually publicly admitted the product was responsible for this child\u2019s death and a life-altering injury to another child, the CPSC wasn\u2019t able to announce a recall for another two months!<\/p>\n Both the head of the CPSC and multiple congresspeople have called for action regarding Section 6(b). They assert that delays caused by this section have and will continue to cost lives. Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Jan Schakowsky introduced a bill in March 2023 that would repeal the section completely. However, this bill currently faces an uphill battle in both chambers as industry groups are fighting to prevent the repeal.<\/p>\n Section 6(b) was implemented during the Reagan administration. In the early 80s, the administration believed that the CPSC had too much power and could potentially destroy businesses if it made a mistake. Originally, the administration wanted to abolish the CPSC. However, it eventually compromised by agreeing to add section 6(b) to the existing CPSC law.<\/p>\n The goal of this section was to protect the reputation of corporations by ensuring that the CPSC never issued inaccurate information. Recalls could potentially cause panic or make the public lose faith in a company, especially if their product caused deaths. This was true whether the recall information was accurate or not. While this was a reasonable goal, Section 6(b) stripped too much power from the CPSC to protect the reputation of corporations during the extremely rare situation that the agency made a mistake.<\/p>\n The CPSC has very little authority to thwart this section. When the agency accidentally shares information that should be confidential, as has happened in the past, it is required to remove that information as quickly as possible. After several breaches of Section 6(b) between 2017 and 2019, the agency implemented a two-step process to ensure that these regulations aren\u2019t violated again in the future.<\/p>\n The only other time that Section 6(b) regulations aren\u2019t followed is when someone leaks the information without authorization. This has previously happened, such as when Consumer Reports was sent information about fatalities involving a Fisher-Price rocking sleeper in 2019. However, these types of leaks are few and far between, and they are not authorized by the CPSC. Anyone discovered leaking this type of information could face criminal or civil charges.<\/p>\nConsumer Product Safety Act Section 6(b)<\/h2>\n
Dangers of Section 6(b)<\/h2>\n
Efforts to Repeal Section 6(b)<\/h2>\n
Why Does Section 6(b) Exist?<\/h2>\n
What the CPSC Can Do<\/h2>\n
What This Law Means for Consumers<\/h2>\n