Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Obtains Default Judgment Against Santos Kidd for Role in Alleged Fraudulent Real Estate Investment Scheme
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. SA 23 CV 700 FB; W.D. Tex. filed June 6, 2023) involving Santos Kiidd:
* * *
On June 1, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas entered a final judgment by default against Santos Kidd, whom the Securities and Exchange Commission previously charged for participating in an alleged fraudulent mobile-home investment scheme.
According to the SEC's complaint, between at least June 2018 and November 2021, Chimene Van Gundy - the self-proclaimed "Queen of Mobile Homes" -
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. SA 23 CV 700 FB; W.D. Tex. filed June 6, 2023) involving Santos Kiidd:
* * *
On June 1, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas entered a final judgment by default against Santos Kidd, whom the Securities and Exchange Commission previously charged for participating in an alleged fraudulent mobile-home investment scheme.
According to the SEC's complaint, between at least June 2018 and November 2021, Chimene Van Gundy - the self-proclaimed "Queen of Mobile Homes" -and her company, Outstanding Real Estate Solutions, Inc. ("ORES"), raised approximately $18.5 million from at least 600 investors for investments in mobile homes promising guaranteed annual returns of 15% to 20%. The complaint alleged that although Van Gundy and ORES told investors that she would use their funds to purchase, refurbish, and sell mobile homes, they instead misappropriated investor funds by making Ponzi-like payments, paying millions of dollars in undisclosed sales commissions, and funding Van Gundy's personal expenses and lifestyle. As alleged, Kidd, a third-party salesperson formerly based in Honolulu, Hawaii, distributed the ORES offering materials and investor presentation to investors, specifically encouraged some investors to apply for home equity lines of credit to fund their investments in ORES, and affirmatively misrepresented to some investors that he did not receive commissions for his sales of the ORES investments, even though he received commission payments totaling $285,155.97 between April 2019 and May 2021.
The judgment, entered on the basis of default, permanently enjoins Kidd, who has now relocated to the Philippines, from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5 thereunder, as well as the broker registration provisions of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The judgment also permanently prohibits Kidd from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security, except for transactions in Kidd's personal account. In addition, Kidd is ordered to pay $285,155.97 in disgorgement, $37,467.18 in prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $285,155.97, for a total monetary judgment of $607,779.12.
The SEC's litigation is being handled by the staff of the SEC's Fort Worth Regional Office.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26565.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26565
MSPB Issues Board Decision Involving DOD Vs. Appellant Denise Davis
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of Defense and appellant Denise Davis on June 12, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: Denise Davis
Agency: Department of Defense
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 5
Docket Number: DC-0752-25-0273-I-1
Issuance Date: June 9, 2026
PROBATIONERS/5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(A), "EMPLOYEE," NOTICE OF TIME LIMIT/APPEALABLE MATTER, ELECTION OF REMEDIES
The Department of Defense appointed the appellant, a preference eligible, to a Cybersecurity Specialist position in the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of Defense and appellant Denise Davis on June 12, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: Denise Davis
Agency: Department of Defense
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 5
Docket Number: DC-0752-25-0273-I-1
Issuance Date: June 9, 2026
PROBATIONERS/5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(A), "EMPLOYEE," NOTICE OF TIME LIMIT/APPEALABLE MATTER, ELECTION OF REMEDIES
The Department of Defense appointed the appellant, a preference eligible, to a Cybersecurity Specialist position in theexcepted service pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1599f, subject to a 3-year probationary period. Approximately 34 months into the probationary period, the agency terminated her employment without affording her an opportunity to respond to the termination notice. The appellant filed a Board appeal, alleging that, despite her 3-year probationary period, she was an employee pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(B) and the agency failed to provide her with the required procedures.
The administrative judge agreed that the appellant was an employee pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(B) and ordered the agency to cancel her termination because it did not provide the procedural protections afforded by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7513. The Board affirmed the administrative judge's initial decision.
Holding: Preference eligibles appointed under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1599f who have completed 1-year of current continuous service are employees with Board appeal rights because such individuals meet the definition at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(B) and are not specifically excluded in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(b).
1. The Board analogized this appeal to Lal v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 821 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) found that a consultant appointed to the excepted service pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 209(f) "without regard to the civil service laws," nevertheless was an employee with Board appeal rights. In Lal, the Federal Circuit found that the relevant language of section 209(f) spoke only of appointment authority, not removal authority, and Congress did not otherwise exclude the employment from the definition of employee under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(b).
2. Congress knows how to exempt a civil service position from the protections found in chapters 75 and 77 of Title 5 if it so desires. See King v. Briggs, 83 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1996). When Congress enacted neighboring section 1599e to extend certain probationary periods from 1-year to 2 years as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (NDAA of 2016), Pub. L. No. 114-92, Sec. 1107, 129 Stat. 726, 1024-27 (2015), it also amended the definition of employee to exclude these probationers from the Board's jurisdiction. However, when enacting section 1599f, Congress took no such action.
3. The Board found that because the appellant met the definition of employee at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(B) and because Congress did not specifically modify that definition to exclude individuals appointed to lengthy probationary periods under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1599f, the appellant was an employee with appeal rights to the Board, and the agency erred by not affording her the procedural protections of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7513 prior to her removal.
Holding: Although the appellant filed her appeal 4 months after the deadline to do so, she demonstrated good cause for the untimely filing of her appeal.
1. An agency's failure to apprise an employee of her Board appeal rights after effectuating an adverse action, as here, will generally justify a waiver of the filing deadline.
2. Taking into account the appellant's pro se status, the lack of notice she received from the agency, and an ambiguous email from the Board, the Board found that she exercised due diligence and ordinary prudence that established good cause for her filing delay.
Holding: The appellant's complaint to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) does not bar consideration of her later-in-time Board appeal, because she did not knowingly elect a remedy by filing the OSC complaint.
1. The agency's notice informing the appellant of her right to file an OSC complaint did not also include language advising her of its binding and preclusive effect on any future Board appeal. As such, the Board found that the appellant did not make a knowing election to proceed at OSC.
* * *
COURT DECISIONS
NONPRECEDENTIAL:
Coleman v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 2025-2031 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-22-0109-W-1). The court affirmed the Board's finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner's individual right of action (IRA) appeal when all of the petitioner's purported protected disclosures occurred after the sole personnel action at issue--the agency's 2015 discontinuation of his hazardous duty pay. The court also rejected the petitioner's claim that the agency's refusal to reinstate his hazardous duty pay was a continuing act of reprisal because subsequent consequences of a discrete act of reprisal do not render the original violation a continuing one under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.
Sanicola v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 2026-1232 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. CH-1221-24-0252-W-1). The court affirmed the Board administrative judge's findings that, although the petitioner made protected disclosures that were a contributing factor to the termination of her employment, the agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated her employment for repeated instances of speeding in an agency vehicle in the absence of her protected disclosures. Specifically, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that the administrative judge and the agency erred by relying on the vehicle's speed data rather than her State driving record to determine whether she violated agency speeding rules.
Hays v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 2024-2359 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-23-0078-I-1). The court affirmed the Board's finding that the agency did not commit harmful procedural error by mailing its notice of proposed removal to the petitioner's mailing address when the petitioner never informed the agency that he resided at an address different from his mailing address. The court further agreed with the Board that a rebuttable presumption existed that the notice reached the petitioner because the agency submitted evidence that it sent a copy of the notice in a sealed envelope that was properly addressed to the petitioner's mailing address.
Reynolds v. Department of Justice, No. 2025-1773 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2026) (MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-23-0078-I-2). The court affirmed the Board's finding that the agency had reasonable cause to indefinitely suspend the petitioner for allegedly sexually assaulting two other employees until his criminal case regarding the same allegations was resolved. The court also found that the petitioner was restored to paid status 15 days after a diversion order was entered in his criminal case, which eventually resulted in the dismissal of the case, and the petitioner did not demonstrate that the agency should have restored him sooner.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/case_reports/Case_Report_June_12_2026.pdf
SEC Charges North Carolina Resident, Utah Attorney in Alleged Fraudulent Stock Scheme
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-4945; S.D.N.Y. filed June 11, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles J. Cole, Torben M. Welch, et al., No. 1:26-cv-4945 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 11, 2026)
On June 11, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against North Carolina resident Charles J. Cole, his lawyer, Utah resident Torben M. Welch, and three entities controlled by Cole, Beacon Heart, LLC, Heart of Humanity, LLC, and Avranoc, LLC, in connection with an alleged fraudulent stock scheme
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-4945; S.D.N.Y. filed June 11, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles J. Cole, Torben M. Welch, et al., No. 1:26-cv-4945 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 11, 2026)
On June 11, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against North Carolina resident Charles J. Cole, his lawyer, Utah resident Torben M. Welch, and three entities controlled by Cole, Beacon Heart, LLC, Heart of Humanity, LLC, and Avranoc, LLC, in connection with an alleged fraudulent stock schemein which Cole and Welch defrauded Infinite Reality, Inc., now known as Napster Corp. ("Infinite Reality"), out of 239 million shares of its stock.
According to the SEC's complaint, Cole and Welch perpetrated a fraudulent scheme in which Cole falsely promised to invest $3.36 billion in Infinite Reality and, together with Welch, falsely told Infinite Reality that Cole and/or Avranoc controlled at least $55 billion in assets. As alleged, based on Cole's false representations, repeated and amplified by Welch, Infinite Reality issued over 239 million shares to Cole, Beacon Heart, and Heart of Humanity in late 2024 and early 2025, but Infinite Reality never received any money from Cole despite his promise to invest. The complaint further alleges that after fraudulently obtaining Infinite Reality's stock, Cole, with the assistance of Welch, pledged nearly 45 million shares of that stock to obtain a $1 million loan from a third-party lender. According to the complaint, Welch provided forged documents purporting to verify Cole's assets and made misleading and false assurances to the lender in connection with the loan.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, charges Cole with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; charges Welch with violating Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as with aiding and abetting Cole's violation of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act; and charges Beacon Heart, Heart of Humanity, and Avranoc with violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions against all defendants, disgorgement with prejudgment interest on a joint and several basis against Cole, Beacon Heart, Heart of Humanity, and Avranoc, and civil penalties against Cole and Welch. The SEC further seeks a conduct-based injunction against Cole. The complaint also names The indigenous Nations' Bank, Derek A. Thiess, and Barry R. Taylor as relief defendants and seeks disgorgement with prejudgment interest from each.
In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Cole.
The SEC's investigation is ongoing. The matter is being handled by Jeffrey Olshan, William J. Durkin, Dahlia Rin, Patrick Noone, Alfred Day and Michele T. Perillo in the SEC's Boston Regional Office. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26563.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26563
FCC Moves to Revoke Texas Radio Station License Over Unpaid Fees
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission has issued an order to pay or show cause (Docket No. DA 26-577) to Ernest R. Lopez, the licensee of radio station KXTM(FM) in Benavides, Texas. The federal agency initiated this legal proceeding to revoke the broadcast authorization for the station due to a failure to clear unpaid regulatory fees, accrued interest, penalties, and administrative expenses.
Under section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934 and agency rules, the commission is mandated to collect annual regulatory fees to fund its operational activities. When these payments
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission has issued an order to pay or show cause (Docket No. DA 26-577) to Ernest R. Lopez, the licensee of radio station KXTM(FM) in Benavides, Texas. The federal agency initiated this legal proceeding to revoke the broadcast authorization for the station due to a failure to clear unpaid regulatory fees, accrued interest, penalties, and administrative expenses.
Under section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934 and agency rules, the commission is mandated to collect annual regulatory fees to fund its operational activities. When these paymentsare neglected or delayed, federal law mandates an immediate 25 percent late payment penalty. Records indicate that the Texas broadcast outlet accumulated unpaid debts totaling $1,849.58. This balance consists of $476.64 from fiscal year 2020 and $1,372.94 from fiscal year 2021. The statutory deadlines for these specific periods occurred in September 2020 and September 2021.
Despite multiple demand letters and explicit email notices sent by the Media Bureau staff to the operator, the financial obligations remained unfulfilled. The agency previously transferred the debts to the United States Department of the Treasury for collection purposes. However, the Treasury recently returned the accounts back to the commission for further administrative collection enforcement.
The enforcement action provides the broadcaster a final window to resolve the situation. The operator must submit verified evidence of complete payment to the Media Bureau within 60 calendar days. Alternatively, the licensee can utilize this period to demonstrate why the debt is not applicable, or provide documentation arguing that the financial obligation should be waived or deferred. Agency policy dictates that financial hardship waivers require absolute proof that an operator lacks the necessary funds to pay while maintaining community broadcast services.
Failure to respond within the 60-day limit will result in the direct revocation of the broadcast license. The agency specified that an evidentiary hearing will not occur unless a material question of fact is raised. Any potential hearing would rely strictly on written evidence, and the licensee would bear the entire burden of proof and face potential assessment for the costs of the proceeding.
Official payments must be processed electronically through the commission registration system or via wire transfer to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, accompanied by the required remittance documentation. Copies of the order have been dispatched via registered mail to the licensee address in Robstown, Texas, as well as to legal counsel in Coram, New York, to ensure immediate notification.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-577A1.pdf
FCC Enforcement Bureau Orders Mexico IP Phone to Show Cause Over Deficient Robocall Database Certification
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau has ordered Mexico IP Phone LLC to show cause why the company's certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database should not be removed, finding the filing both deficient and apparently willful. The Bureau's order (Docket No. EB-TCD-26-00040954), adopted and released June 11, 2026, says the company's February 24, 2026 recertification omitted required information and that the firm appears to have altered a Commission notice in an effort to obtain direct access to U.S. telephone numbers.
The RMD, established by the Commission
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau has ordered Mexico IP Phone LLC to show cause why the company's certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database should not be removed, finding the filing both deficient and apparently willful. The Bureau's order (Docket No. EB-TCD-26-00040954), adopted and released June 11, 2026, says the company's February 24, 2026 recertification omitted required information and that the firm appears to have altered a Commission notice in an effort to obtain direct access to U.S. telephone numbers.
The RMD, established by the Commissionin 2020 to improve transparency and reduce illegal robocall traffic, requires voice service providers and intermediate carriers to file detailed statements about their robocall mitigation practices, to identify at least one individual principal, and to disclose whether they were subject to any enforcement or law enforcement action with findings of wrongdoing in the prior two years. The Enforcement Bureau says Mexico IP failed to identify an individual principal, listing only "Mexico IP Phone," and falsely indicated it had not been the subject of any law enforcement or regulatory actions during the relevant period.
The Bureau also contends that Mexico IP fabricated a Notice of Interconnected VoIP Numbering Authorization and submitted the forged document to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator as part of an application to obtain direct access to United States numbers. The Purported Notice submitted to NANPA mirrors a genuine Commission notice that granted a separate company authorization earlier this year, except the forged document replaced the authorized company's name with Mexico IP's and changed docket information and effective dates to make it appear as if Wireline Competition Bureau staff had issued the authorization.
Taken together, the Bureau says the omissions and the apparent fabrication indicate an intentional scheme to circumvent the Commission's safeguards for authorizing direct access to numbering resources. A provider seeking direct access must first receive Commission authorization, file in a designated non-docketed inbox, pay a required fee, and certify that it will not use numbers to knowingly facilitate illegal robocalls or spoofing. The application process includes an initial procedural review, an Accepted-For-Filing public notice, and a 31-day period before an authorization can become effective absent other action. The Enforcement Bureau found that Mexico IP neither followed the application process nor received any accepted-for-filing notice to justify claiming it had authorization.
The Bureau recounts a timeline of actions it says shows a coordinated effort. On February 4, 2026, Mexico IP filed a document labeled "Application for Authorization to Obtain Direct Access to Telephone Numbers," but the filing went into a rulemaking docket rather than the non-docketed inbox required for such authorizations, and no filing fee accompanied the submission. The Wireline Bureau took no action on that submission. On February 24, 2026, the company recertified its RMD entry without identifying an individual principal and without disclosing a prior law enforcement communication sent to the company. The next day, February 25, NANPA notified Wireline Bureau staff that Mexico IP had submitted the Purported Notice as part of its NANPA application. Wireline Bureau records show no issuance of that notice to Mexico IP.
The Enforcement Bureau's scrutiny also builds on prior concerns raised by a multistate law enforcement group. On August 7, 2025, the Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force -- a coalition of 51 state attorneys general -- sent Mexico IP a letter asserting that the company had been "immediately downstream" of non-responsive voice providers in at least 40 traceback investigations. The Task Force said Mexico IP accepted and transmitted high-volume illegal or suspicious call traffic that reached U.S. consumers and likely produced revenue for the company. The Bureau's order says Mexico IP should have disclosed the Task Force letter in its RMD recertification because the Task Force's written communication contained findings that the company had accepted and transmitted substantial volumes of illegal call traffic.
The Commission's rules require disclosure of written notices that contain findings of actual or suspected wrongdoing; the rules treat such instruments differently from mere inquiries or unadjudicated investigations. The Enforcement Bureau concluded the Task Force letter met the standard for disclosure because it reported findings that Mexico IP had accepted and transmitted significant illegal call traffic. By failing to identify the letter in its recertification, the Bureau says Mexico IP obstructed the agency's oversight and enforcement abilities.
Because the RMD certification must include at least one individual principal to help the Commission identify managers and owners who may be barred from future filings, the Bureau characterized Mexico IP's listing of only the company's corporate name as an incomplete disclosure that compromises the database's purpose. The agency also noted that officers who sign RMD certifications declare under penalty of perjury that the information is accurate; submitting false or inaccurate information may lead to enforcement actions, removal from the RMD, and possible forfeitures.
The Enforcement Bureau concluded that Mexico IP's pattern of filings and submissions strongly suggests willful disregard of Commission requirements. The term "willful," the Bureau notes, means an act was done intentionally or with careless disregard of statutory requirements, regardless of whether evil intent is present. Because the company recertified its RMD entry with the alleged deficiencies one day before submitting the fabricated notice to NANPA and 19 days after filing the deficient application, the Bureau views the timing as evidence the filings were part of an intentional plan to obtain direct numbering access.
If the company fails to respond to the Show Cause order within 10 calendar days, the Enforcement Bureau will remove Mexico IP's certification from the RMD. Removal would require all voice service providers and intermediate carriers to cease accepting calls directly from Mexico IP, effectively cutting the firm off from routing calls into providers that rely on the RMD to vet partners. The order warns that if removed, Mexico IP will not be permitted to refile in the database without express consent from both the Enforcement Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau.
The Bureau has directed Mexico IP to file a written response within 10 days explaining why the company's certification should not be removed or to cure the identified deficiencies. The response must be mailed to the Commission's Office of the Secretary and emailed to the Enforcement Bureau's Telecommunications Consumers Division. The agency also sent copies of the show cause order to the company's listed CEO at an Albuquerque address and to the firm's administrative email.
Separate Commission materials referenced in the order lay out the broader rules governing RMD filings and direct access to numbering resources. The RMD aims to ensure providers describe specific mitigation steps, cooperate with traceback requests, and disclose prior enforcement actions; number authorization rules govern how VoIP providers obtain telephone numbers directly from NANPA after receiving Commission authorization. The Enforcement Bureau cited the Commission's various orders and rules as the basis for its authority to remove deficient certifications and to use a two-step expedited removal process when it finds a willful violation.
The company has not publicly commented on the order. The show cause proceeding now places Mexico IP at risk of immediate operational consequences if the Bureau follows through with removal, while opening the door for the company to submit corrective information or explanations that could preserve its RMD standing.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
URL: Mexico IP Phone LLC
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-574A1.pdf
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Kitchen HQ Thermal Insulated Bowls With Detachable Hinged Lids
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Kitchen HQ Thermal Insulated Bowls with Detachable Hinged Lids
Hazard: Metal springs in the detachable hinged lid of the insulated bowls can catch fire when used in the microwave, posing a fire hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 11, 2026
Units: About 86,040
Consumer Contact: HSN toll-free at 888-520-2197 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at thermalbowls@realtimeresults.net, or online at https://www.recallrtr.com/thermalbowls or https://www.hsn.com
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Kitchen HQ Thermal Insulated Bowls with Detachable Hinged Lids
Hazard: Metal springs in the detachable hinged lid of the insulated bowls can catch fire when used in the microwave, posing a fire hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 11, 2026
Units: About 86,040
Consumer Contact: HSN toll-free at 888-520-2197 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at thermalbowls@realtimeresults.net, or online at https://www.recallrtr.com/thermalbowls or https://www.hsn.comand click "Recall Information" at the bottom of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves certain Kitchen HQ brand thermal insulated bowls with detachable-hinged lids. The bowls, which were sold in a variety of colors, have a metal interior and a plastic exterior with the words "KITCHEN HQ" written across the front. Affected models include the 10-cup bowl (SKN 817800), the pair of 10.5-cup and 2-cup bowls sold as a set (SKN 884907), and the 10.4-cup, 6-cup, and 2-cup bowls sold as a set of three (SKN 900600).
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the insulated bowls immediately and contact HSN for a full refund on a complete bowl and lid set. A partial refund is also available for consumers who wish to keep the insulated bowls without the lid.
Incidents/Injuries: HSN has received 30 reports that the insulated bowls smoked, sparked, melted or caught fire when microwaved, including one incident resulting in a fire that caused property damage.
Sold At: HSN.com, HSN televised shows, and HSN digital shopping platforms from July 2023 through February 2026 for between $20 and $60.
Importer(s): HSN, Inc, of West Chester, Pennsylvania
Manufactured In: India
Recall number: 26-537
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/HSN-Recalls-Kitchen-HQ-Thermal-Insulated-Bowls-Due-to-Fire-Hazard
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Kidisle Coffeemakers
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Kidisle Coffeemakers
Hazard: The recalled coffeemakers can become clogged causing hot liquid or steam to build up and be released unexpectedly during use, posing a risk of serious injury from burn hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 11, 2026
Units: About 17,600
Consumer Contact: By email at KidisleKC101Brecall@outlook.com.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Kidisle-branded hot and iced coffee machines. The single-serve coffeemaker is designed with black,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Kidisle Coffeemakers
Hazard: The recalled coffeemakers can become clogged causing hot liquid or steam to build up and be released unexpectedly during use, posing a risk of serious injury from burn hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 11, 2026
Units: About 17,600
Consumer Contact: By email at KidisleKC101Brecall@outlook.com.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Kidisle-branded hot and iced coffee machines. The single-serve coffeemaker is designed with black,white and gray colors, measures about 11 inches high and 6 inches wide, and has a 50-ounce detachable water tank. The coffeemakers can brew 6 to 14 ounces of cupped or ground coffee. Model "KC101B" is printed on a sticker on the coffeemakers' underside and the brand name on the product order receipt.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the coffeemakers immediately and contact Kidisle for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to destroy the coffeemaker by unplugging and cutting the power cord, write "Recalled" in permanent marker on it, and send a photo of the destroyed product with a visible model number and cut power cord, to KidisleKC101Brecall@outlook.com.
Incidents/Injuries: CPSC is aware of at least 107 reports of the coffeemakers releasing hot liquid or steam unexpectedly, resulting in at least 27 reported injuries, including first and second-degree burns that required medical treatment.
Sold Online At: Amazon.com, Walmart.com and eBay.com from June 2024 through April 2026 for about $49.
Manufacturer(s): ChangShaShiMengQiSiDianZiShangMaoYouXianGongSi, of China
Importer(s): Kidisle, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-557
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Coffeemakers-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-from-Burn-Hazard-Imported-by-Kidisle
