Featured Stories
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Statement on Proposed Rescission of Pay-to-Play Rule
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on Sept. 3, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
First Amendment Sense and Sensibilities: Statement on Proposed Rescission of Pay-to-Play Rule
Today, the Commission proposed to rescind Investment Advisers Act rule 206(4)-5, the investment adviser "Pay-to-Play Rule." I am thrilled that we are proposing to eliminate rather than simply amend the rule, which always has bothered my First Amendment sensibilities.[1]
Although ensuring that campaign donations are not driving adviser selection makes
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following statement on Sept. 3, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
First Amendment Sense and Sensibilities: Statement on Proposed Rescission of Pay-to-Play Rule
Today, the Commission proposed to rescind Investment Advisers Act rule 206(4)-5, the investment adviser "Pay-to-Play Rule." I am thrilled that we are proposing to eliminate rather than simply amend the rule, which always has bothered my First Amendment sensibilities.[1]
Although ensuring that campaign donations are not driving adviser selection makessense, the rule effectively functions as a restriction on political speech. The rule is broad,[2] and its exceptions are narrow.[3]The Commission's enforcement of the rule has not moderated its breadth,[4]and the Commission rarely uses its unwieldy exemptive authority under the rule.[5] Advisers' implementation of the rule has compounded its consequences: as the Commission acknowledges in today's proposing release, one effect of the Pay-to-Play Rule has been "advisers prohibiting contributions outright."[6]
Political speech is at the core of what the First Amendment protects.[7] The SEC, even when its motives are good, must tread carefully in curtailing such speech. Today's proposal respects the First Amendment's protections of speech and the limits of our authority to override such protections.
The rescission, if adopted, would not pave the way for adviser pay-to-play practices. These practices are and would still be prohibited by other laws, including the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act. In fact, prior to the adoption of the Pay-to-Play Rule, the Commission brought antifraud actions against advisers for their pay-to-play practices.[8] Notably, other government bodies exist to pursue political corruption.
I look forward to receiving comments from advisers, advisory personnel, state and local government entities and officials, and other interested parties on this proposal. I would welcome feedback on the following:
* As noted in the Proposing Release, the Pay-to-Play Rule was modeled, in large part, on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rule G-37 (the MSRB political contribution rule).[9] In addition, rule 15Fh-6 under the Securities Exchange Act contains a similar political contribution prohibition for security-based swap dealers. FINRA rule 2030 prohibits certain FINRA members from engaging in distribution or solicitation activities for compensation with a government entity on behalf of an investment adviser that provides or is seeking to provide investment advisory services to such entity within two years after a contribution to an official of the government entity is made by the FINRA member (except when the member is engaging in activities that would cause the member to be a municipal adviser). Should these rules be rescinded too?
* Will advisers, even after the rule is rescinded, prohibit employees from making state and local political contributions? Would guidance from the Commission make this unintended outcome less likely?
Thank you to the staff in the Division of Investment Management, the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and the Office of the General Counsel for their thoughtful work on the proposed rescission.
* * *
[1] See, e.g., Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Peirce Out: Remarks at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Capital Markets Summit (June 9, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-chamber-commerce-capital-markets-summit-060926#_ednref12; Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Expect the Inquisition: Dissent from Obra Capital Management, LLC (Aug. 19, 2024), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-statement-obra-capital-management-081924; Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, There's Got to be a Better Way: Statement of Dissent Regarding Wayzata Investment Partners LLC (Apr. 15, 2024), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-statement-wayzata-041524; Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Laudable Ends, Poorly Pursued: Statement Regarding Recent Pay-to-Play Rule Settlements (Sept. 15, 2022), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-statement-pay-play-rule-settlements-091522.
[2] In general, the rule restricts an investment adviser from providing advisory services for compensation to a government entity if it or any of its covered associates (including a person who becomes a covered associate within two years after making a contribution) contributes to an official of the government entity. See rule 206(4)-5(a)(1). Under the rule an "official" includes, both incumbents and candidates, if the office held or sought "has authority to appoint any person who is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the hiring of an investment adviser." See rule 206(4)-5(f)(6)(ii). Even an official that merely appoints another person who then participates in the selection of an investment adviser is included within the scope of the rule. See Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers, Investment Advisers Act Rel. No. 3043, 75 FR 41018 (Jul. 14, 2010) at nn.141-143 and accompanying text.
[3] For example, the rule excludes contributions made by a covered associate that in the aggregate do not exceed $350 per election to any official for whom the covered associate was entitled to vote. See rule 206(4)-5(b)(1). If the covered associate was not entitled to vote for the official, the maximum for the exception is $150.
[4] See, e.g., Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Laudable Ends, Poorly Pursued: Statement Regarding Recent Pay-to-Play Rule Settlements (Sept. 15, 2022), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-statement-pay-play-rule-settlements-091522, at text accompany notes 5-6. ("The four enforcement actions share similar facts. All involve one-time, small-dollar contributions by one or two people, and all the investment advisers had established advisory relationships with the relevant government entities before the contributions occurred. Three of the four actions involve closed-end funds investments where "investors were generally prohibited from withdrawing their money for the life of the Funds." In the fourth, the contributor was not covered by the Rule at the time of the contribution in July 2018; the contributor became a covered associate when promoted in September 2018.Nowhere do the Commission's orders find that any of the investment advisers solicited new or additional business from any governments at the time of or after the contributions.") (footnotes omitted).
[5] See rule 206(4)-5(e).
[6] See Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers, Investment Advisers Act Rel. No. 6994 (Sept. 3, 2026) ("Proposing Release") at text accompanying n.53. In addition, investment adviser personnel who choose to run for office also cannot collect campaign donations from colleagues and supporters in the advisory community because such a candidate is not able to solicit campaign contributions from people with whom they have worked.
[7] See Nat'l Republican Senatorial Comm. V. FEC, 146 S. Ct. 2404, 2415 (2026)("The First Amendment's protection of free speech has its 'fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.'") (quoting FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289, 302 (2022)).
[8] See, e.g., SEC v. Henry Morris, et al., Litigation Release No. 21036 (May 12, 2009); SEC v. Paul J. Silvester, et al., Litigation Release No. 16759 (Oct. 10, 2000).
[9] See Proposing Release at text accompanying n .109.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-statement-pay-play-090326
MSPB Issues Board Decision Involving Department of Justice Vs. Appellant Arielle Rivera
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of Justice and appellant Arielle Rivera on Sept. 3, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: Arielle Rivera
Agency: Department of Justice
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 8
Docket Number: DA-0752-25-0110-I-1
Issuance Date: September 1, 2026
WHISTLEBLOWER PROOF OF CLAIM, GENERALLY
The appellant filed a Board appeal challenging her 30-day suspension based on a charge of unauthorized use of an official government vehicle (OGV) and raised various affirmative defenses,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report on a board decision involving the Department of Justice and appellant Arielle Rivera on Sept. 3, 2026:
* * *
BOARD DECISIONS
Appellant: Arielle Rivera
Agency: Department of Justice
Decision Number: 2026 MSPB 8
Docket Number: DA-0752-25-0110-I-1
Issuance Date: September 1, 2026
WHISTLEBLOWER PROOF OF CLAIM, GENERALLY
The appellant filed a Board appeal challenging her 30-day suspension based on a charge of unauthorized use of an official government vehicle (OGV) and raised various affirmative defenses,including a claim of retaliation for whistleblowing activity. The administrative judge sustained the suspension, denied all of the appellant's affirmative defenses, found nexus, and determined that the suspension penalty was reasonable. The appellant filed a petition for review challenging the administrative judge's decisions sustaining the charge and the penalty and denying her affirmative defense of reprisal for protected equal employment opportunity activity.
Holding: The administrative judge's findings sustaining the charge, denying the appellant's affirmative defenses, and finding the penalty reasonable are supported by the record and are affirmed. The Board also held that the administrative judge may make alternative findings on an agency's clear-and-convincing-evidence defense even when an appellant fails to establish a prima facie whistleblower retaliation claim.
1. The appellant's protected disclosures and activities occurred after the suspension and therefore could not have contributed to the suspension decision. The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation.
2. The administrative judge alternatively found that the agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have suspended the appellant in the absence of her protected disclosures or activities, and the Board held that such alternative findings are permissible even when an appellant fails to establish a prima facie case.
3. The Board overruled Scoggins v Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 592 (2016) and Clarke v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 121 M.S.P.R. 154 (2014), and any similar cases to the extent they prohibit alternative findings regarding the agency's clear and convincing evidence defense. The Board determined that neither the text of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1221(e)(2), as amended by the WPEA, nor Congress' purpose in enacting the amendment bars such alternative findings.
* * *
COURT DECISIONS
PRECEDENTIAL:
Petitioner: George Jadue
Respondent: Department of Homeland Security
Tribunal: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Number: 2024-2144
MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-21-0062-I-2
Issuance Date: August 31, 2026
MIXED CASE PROCEDURES
SANCTIONS
LACK OF CANDOR
The petitioner was previously employed by the Department of State and failed to update his background investigation information to reflect that he obtained a second citizenship after he was hired. That information was discovered and led to a suspension of his security clearance and a criminal indictment that was ultimately resolved by his voluntary resignation from the agency. He was subsequently hired by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and again completed a background investigation questionnaire. Following an unrelated investigation into his background, the incorrect statements in his DHS background investigation materials were discovered and the agency proposed the petitioner's removal for a charge of lack of candor with 11 specifications related to his answers addressing the circumstances underlying his departure from the State department, his prior criminal proceedings, and the suspension of his security clearance.
The petitioner filed a mixed-case complaint challenging his termination with the agency's equal employment opportunity (EEO) office. In processing his complaint, the agency failed to meet the regulatory deadlines set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for completion of the report of investigation and the issuance of a final agency decision (FAD). The petitioner subsequently filed a Board appeal of the FAD and requested that the administrative judge impose sanctions based on the agency's failure to meet the regulatory EEOC deadlines, which was denied. The administrative judge sustained four of the 11 specifications of the charge and found that the removal penalty was reasonable.
The petitioner filed a petition for review, and the Board's two members issued a split-vote decision, resulting in the initial decision becoming final. Regarding the issue of the denied motion for sanctions, Chairman Harris stated that she would have remanded the appeal for the administrative judge to assess the sanctions request by applying the factors the EEOC applies in such circumstances, while Vice Chair Limon did not believe that the Board had the authority to impose sanctions in such circumstances and would have affirmed the initial decision. The petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and formally abandoned his discrimination claims.
Holding: The court lacks jurisdiction to consider any component of a mixed-case discrimination claim, including a request for sanctions against the agency related to its handling of the discrimination complaint.
1. When a petitioner files an appeal with the Federal Ciruict, he explicitly waives his discrimination claims, which is required because such claims are only judicially reviewable in district court. Consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, such waiver is effective for both merits and procedural discrimination issues.
2. The sanctions issue arose solely from the agency's alleged failure to comply with the EEOC regulations governing the processing of the petitioner's mixed case EEO complaint. The only reason the regulatory deadlines applied here was due to the mixed-case nature of the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner's waiver converted his appeal to a pure adverse action appeal, and the court may not consider a sanctions issue that only arose from the discrimination claim over which it lacks jurisdiction.
Holding: Substantial evidence supports the administrative judge's decision sustaining the four specifications of the lack of candor charge and the removal penalty.
1. There was no inconsistency between the administrative judge's decision to sustain specifications 1 and 6, which concerned written documents the petitioner submitted himself, and the administrative judge's decision not to sustain specifications 7, 8, 9, and 11, all of which concerned the petitioner's representations during a live interview with an investigator, which the administrative judge characterized as "rambling," but not deceptive.
2. Specification 2, which concerned the petitioner's answer to a question about the basis for his prior criminal proceedings, involved an element of deception by omission because the answer was knowingly incomplete.
3. Substantial evidence supported the administrative judge's finding that specification 4, which concerned the petitioner's response to a question asking whether he had ever had a security clearance suspended, involved an element of deception, and the administrative judge's finding on this specification was not inconsistent with his finding that specification 3 was not proven.
4. Regarding the removal penalty, the administrative judge was not required to reassess the penalty simply because some specifications underlying the charge were not sustained, where the remaining sustained specifications supported the charge and penalty determination. Additionally, both the deciding official and the administrative judge properly considered the fact that the petitioner's security clearance was ultimately restored in analyzing the Douglas factors.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/case_reports/Case_Report_September_3_2026.pdf
FCC Issues Notice of Violation to Zamora Broadcasting Systems
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued a Notice of Violation (File No.: EB-FIELDNER-26-00040932) to Zamora Broadcasting Systems Inc., licensee of FM translator radio station W300DI in Dearborn, Michigan. Released on Sept. 3, 2026, by the Regional Director of Region One in the Enforcement Bureau, the notice follows an inspection conducted on July 15, 2026, in response to a complaint.
During the site visit at 13961 Turner Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, an agent observed multiple regulatory infractions. First, the station violated 47 CFR Sec. 74.1251(b)(2) by operating an
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued a Notice of Violation (File No.: EB-FIELDNER-26-00040932) to Zamora Broadcasting Systems Inc., licensee of FM translator radio station W300DI in Dearborn, Michigan. Released on Sept. 3, 2026, by the Regional Director of Region One in the Enforcement Bureau, the notice follows an inspection conducted on July 15, 2026, in response to a complaint.
During the site visit at 13961 Turner Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, an agent observed multiple regulatory infractions. First, the station violated 47 CFR Sec. 74.1251(b)(2) by operating anunauthorized antenna array consisting of three Aldena AST.05.02.336 antennas facing directions of 50, 140, and 235 degrees. This setup deviated from the authorized log periodic antenna pattern licensed at 30 and 270 degrees, failing to produce a required null at 140 degrees. Zamora failed to submit the required application on FCC Form 349 prior to changing its transmitting antenna system.
Second, the station violated 47 CFR Sec. 74.1235(e) regarding power limits. Station W300DI is licensed for a transmitter output power of 38 Watts. However, inspectors found the station operating an RVR Electronica TEX150LCD transmitter at 150.0 Watts--representing 394 percent of its authorized power.
Pursuant to section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 and section 1.89 of FCC rules, Zamora must submit a sworn, written statement within 20 days explaining the violations, outlining corrective measures, and providing a completion timeline. Failure to resolve these issues could result in further enforcement, including financial penalties.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-938A1.pdf
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving XO Poppy Power Trip Magnetic Wireless Power Banks
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: XO Poppy Power Trip Magnetic Wireless Power Banks
Hazard: The lithium-ion battery in the recalled power banks can overheat and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 03, 2026
Units: About 32,400
Consumer Contact: Truststone Group toll-free at 833-820-0888 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at xopowerbank@realtimeresults.net, online at https://www.recallrtr.com/xopowerbank and click on "Important Recall
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: XO Poppy Power Trip Magnetic Wireless Power Banks
Hazard: The lithium-ion battery in the recalled power banks can overheat and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 03, 2026
Units: About 32,400
Consumer Contact: Truststone Group toll-free at 833-820-0888 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, email at xopowerbank@realtimeresults.net, online at https://www.recallrtr.com/xopowerbank and click on "Important RecallInformation" to learn more.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves XO Poppy Power Trip Magnetic Wireless Power Banks with model number PYPBK5M. The power banks come in three colors and can be identified by their appearance and packaging: cream colored (PY-PBK5M-CR2); cream with pink bow print (PY-PBK5M-BW8); and black with teddy bear print (PY-PBK5M-TB2). Specific model numbers can be found printed on the bottom of the original packaging, directly above the barcode.
Note: Do not throw this recalled lithium-ion battery or device in the trash, in the general recycling stream (e.g., street-level or curbside recycling bins), or in used battery recycling boxes found at various retail and home improvement stores. Recalled lithium-ion batteries must be disposed of differently than other batteries, because they present a greater risk of fire. Your municipal household hazardous waste (HHW) collection center may accept this recalled lithium-ion battery or device for disposal. Before taking your battery or device to a HHW collection center, contact that office ahead of time and ask whether it accepts recalled lithium-ion batteries. If it does not, contact your municipality for further guidance.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled power banks immediately and contact Truststone Group for a full refund in the form of a virtual gift card. The virtual gift card can be used at any establishment that accepts Mastercard.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold At: TJX and Marshalls stores nationwide from April 2025 through March 2026 for about $15
Importer(s): Truststone Group LLC of New York
Manufactured In: Vietnam
Recall number: 26-740
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Truststone-Group-Recalls-XO-Poppy-Power-Trip-Magnetic-Wireless-Power-Banks-Due-to-Fire-and-Burn-Hazards-Sold-Exclusively-at-TJX-and-Marshalls-Stores
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Squeezy Dumplings
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Squeezy Dumplings
Hazard: The squeezy toys contain water beads. If ingested, water beads expand and can pose deadly ingestion, choking, and intestinal obstruction hazards inside a child's body, resulting in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration, and a risk of death to a child.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 03, 2026
Units: About 8,000
Consumer Contact: Email Chenyuanhui at GIHNJSI_recall@163.com
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves GIHNJSI Squeezy
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Squeezy Dumplings
Hazard: The squeezy toys contain water beads. If ingested, water beads expand and can pose deadly ingestion, choking, and intestinal obstruction hazards inside a child's body, resulting in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration, and a risk of death to a child.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 03, 2026
Units: About 8,000
Consumer Contact: Email Chenyuanhui at GIHNJSI_recall@163.com
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves GIHNJSI SqueezyDumplings toys. The toys are translucent round squishy balls with cartoon faces and glitter-like particles and water beads on the inside. The Squeezy Dumplings come in a tan plastic container shaped like a bamboo steamer. "SQUEEZY DUMPLINGS" and "SQUEEZE ME" are printed on a removable label. There are no markings on the product.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the Squeezy Dumplings toys immediately and contact Chenyuanhui for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to write "RECALLED" in permanent marker on the Squeezy Dumpling and on its tan plastic container, throw the toy away and email a photo of the disposed toy to GIHNJSI_recall@163.com.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported.
Sold Online At: Amazon.com from May 2026 through June 2026 for about $20.
Retailer: Xiamen Liuhui Electric Technology Co., Ltd., dba Chenyuanhui, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-738
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/GIHNJSI-Squeezy-Dumplings-Toys-Recalled-Due-to-Serious-Ingestion-Choking-and-Obstruction-Hazards-Sold-on-Amazon-by-Chenyuanhui
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Scented Mistolin Dilutable Cleaners, Lestoil Heavy Duty Multi-Purpose Cleaners
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Scented Mistolin(R) Dilutable Cleaners and Lestoil(R) Heavy Duty Multi-Purpose Cleaners sold in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Hazard: The recalled products may contain bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is an environmental organism found widely in soil and water. People with weakened immune systems or external medical devices who are exposed to Pseudomonas aeruginosa face a risk of serious infection that may require medical treatment. The bacteria
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Scented Mistolin(R) Dilutable Cleaners and Lestoil(R) Heavy Duty Multi-Purpose Cleaners sold in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Hazard: The recalled products may contain bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is an environmental organism found widely in soil and water. People with weakened immune systems or external medical devices who are exposed to Pseudomonas aeruginosa face a risk of serious infection that may require medical treatment. The bacteriacan enter the body if inhaled, through the eyes, or through a break in the skin. People with healthy immune systems are usually not affected by the bacteria.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 03, 2026
Units: About 6.3 million
Consumer Contact: Clorox Puerto Rico toll-free at 855-215-5439 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET, email at Mistolinrecall@sedgwick.com or online at www.mistolinrecall.com or https://puerto-rico.mistolin.co/ and click on "Recall Information" at the bottom of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall only includes Mistolin and Lestoil products sold in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The recall involves scented Mistolin Dilutable Cleaners in Alegra tu Dia, Espiritu Play, Flores de Primavera, Fresco Despertar, Frescura de Lavanda, Frescura Tropical, Manzana y Canela, Pino y Especias and Solo para Ti scents and scented Lestoil Heavy Duty Multi-Purpose Cleaners in Energia del Yunque, Fuerza de Lavanda Tropical, Intenso Limon Boricua and Olas de Rincon scents, with date codes beginning with the prefix "PR01" and followed by a five-digit number between 25091 and 26168, which represents products produced between April 1, 2025 to June 17, 2026. Only products with scents are included in this recall. The products were sold in bottles of 28, 40, 64 and 128 fluid ounces.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled cleaners immediately. Consumers will be asked to register at https://mistolinrecall.expertinquiry.com/ and submit a picture of the 12-digit UPC code printed on the label and a picture of the date code printed on the side of the bottle and dispose of the product in its container with household trash. Consumers registering bottles in the affected scents with date codes printed on the bottle beginning with PR01 and followed by a five-digit number between 25091 and 26168 will receive a full refund of the purchase price, with receipt or of the manufacturer's suggested retail price, without receipt.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold At: Walmart, Sam's Club, Costco, Supermercados Econo, Supermercados Selecto, and other major retailers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for between $1.40 and $8.
Manufacturer(s): Clorox Manufacturing Company of Puerto Rico, Inc., Puerto Rico
Manufactured In: Puerto Rico
Recall number: 26-741
Fast Track Recall
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Clorox-Puerto-Rico-Recalls-6-Million-Scented-Mistolin-and-Lestoil-Multi-Purpose-Cleaners-Due-to-Risk-of-Exposure-to-Bacteria
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Amana Through the Wall Air Conditioners or Heat Pumps
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Amana Through the Wall (TTW) air conditioners or heat pumps
Hazard: The snubber circuit can emit flames if it shorts, posing a risk of serious injury due to fire hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 03, 2026
Units: About 4,633 (In addition, about 126 were sold in Canada)
Consumer Contact: DCT toll-free at 833-730-0939 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or online at https://www.amana-ptac.com/amana-ttw-wrac-recall-2 or www.amana-ptac.com and click on
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Amana Through the Wall (TTW) air conditioners or heat pumps
Hazard: The snubber circuit can emit flames if it shorts, posing a risk of serious injury due to fire hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: September 03, 2026
Units: About 4,633 (In addition, about 126 were sold in Canada)
Consumer Contact: DCT toll-free at 833-730-0939 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or online at https://www.amana-ptac.com/amana-ttw-wrac-recall-2 or www.amana-ptac.com and click on"Product Recall" at the bottom right of the page for more information.
Recall Details
In Conjunction With:
Description: This recall involves certain Amana brand Through the Wall (TTW) air conditioners or heat pumps. These products are white and the brand name is printed on most of the units' control covers. The units are used to provide room climate control. They most often are installed at hotels, apartment buildings, and commercial spaces.
The model number and serial number are located on the front of the unit on the front edge of the base pan on a white sticker. Recalled units have a model number beginning with PB. The model numbers in the recall include: [View table in the link at bottom.]
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately and contact Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing, Inc. (DCT) to submit a request for a full refund of the unit. Consumers will be required to provide their contact information, cut the product's cord, and then upload a photo of the product's serial number and the cut cord to receive a full refund of the unit.
Incidents/Injuries: DCT has received two reports of a component on the control board shorting. No injuries have been reported.
Sold At: Through direct sales and distribution customers nationwide from April 2025 through June 2026 for between $625 and $900.
Importer(s): Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing, Inc. of Houston, Texas
Manufactured In: India
Recall number: 26-734
Fast Track Recall
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Daikin-Comfort-Technologies-Manufacturing-Recalls-Amana-Through-The-Wall-Air-Conditioners-and-Heat-Pumps-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-from-Fire
