Federal Regulatory Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal regulatory agencies ranging from the Securities Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Featured Stories
Litigation: SEC Charges Virginia Engineer With Orchestrating $30 Million Offering Fraud
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:24-cv-01282; E.D. Va. filed July 25, 2024) involving Babu Ramaraj:
* * *
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Babu Ramaraj, a resident of Aldie, Virginia, with defrauding over 70 investors of approximately $31 million through his company, DAB Inspection and Consulting Services LLC.
The SEC's complaint alleges that, from February 2019 through May 2024, Ramaraj solicited and lured his victims with the promise of 40-60 percent annual investment returns. According to the complaint,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:24-cv-01282; E.D. Va. filed July 25, 2024) involving Babu Ramaraj:
* * *
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Babu Ramaraj, a resident of Aldie, Virginia, with defrauding over 70 investors of approximately $31 million through his company, DAB Inspection and Consulting Services LLC.
The SEC's complaint alleges that, from February 2019 through May 2024, Ramaraj solicited and lured his victims with the promise of 40-60 percent annual investment returns. According to the complaint,Ramaraj falsely told investors that he would use their funds to finance surety and performance bonds for large-scale, lucrative contracts DAB had been awarded to provide quality assurance services to state and local governments. Ramaraj allegedly created fake contracts and financial documentation to support his misrepresentations. The SEC alleges that, in reality, the contracts never existed and Ramaraj instead used investor funds to purchase luxury automobiles, jewelry, and property, engage in unprofitable options trading, and pay earlier investors.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, charges Ramaraj with violating 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, and seeks an injunction, disgorgement, penalties, and an officer-and-director bar.
In a parallel action, in June 2024, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia announced criminal charges against Ramaraj for wire fraud and unlawful monetary transactions. Those charges are pending.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Christine R. O'Neil, Matthew B. Homberger, and Michael A. Cuff in the Philadelphia Regional Office. It was supervised by Brian R. Higgins, Brendan P. McGlynn, Scott A. Thompson, and Nicholas P. Grippo. The SEC's litigation will be led by Karen M. Klotz and Judson Mihok and supervised by Gregory R. Bockin. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, the FBI, and the Virginia State Corporation Commission.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26055
FEC Approves Advisory Opinion, Rulemaking Documents
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news release on July 25, 2024:
At its open meeting today, the Federal Election Commission approved an advisory opinion, two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, a Notice of Disposition, and a Notice of Availability. Prior to the meeting, the Commission approved certification to the Secretary of the Treasury of a payment from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF) to Mike Pence and Mike Pence for President.
Advisory Opinion 2024-08 (Bob Good and Bob Good for Congress) (https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2024-08/)
The
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news release on July 25, 2024:
At its open meeting today, the Federal Election Commission approved an advisory opinion, two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, a Notice of Disposition, and a Notice of Availability. Prior to the meeting, the Commission approved certification to the Secretary of the Treasury of a payment from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF) to Mike Pence and Mike Pence for President.
Advisory Opinion 2024-08 (Bob Good and Bob Good for Congress) (https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2024-08/)
TheCommission approved an advisory opinion, subject to edits made at the table, in response to a request from Congressman Bob Good and Good for Congress, concerning the committee's proposal to seek permission from general election contributors to redesignate their contributions from the general election to the recount fund, and then redesignate funds from those contributors who grant such permission. The Commission concluded that the proposal is permissible, because nothing in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act), or Commission regulations prohibits the proposed redesignations, and the Commission has previously concluded that authorized committees could request redesignation of contributions in circumstances that are not addressed in Commission regulations, so long as the redesignations otherwise complied with the regulatory requirements for redesignations. Chairman Sean J. Cooksey issued a Dissenting Statement, and Commissioners Allen J. Dickerson and James E. "Trey" Trainor, III issued a Statement.
REG 2013-06 (Administrative Fines Program Expansion) - Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/mtgdoc-24-24-A.pdf)
The Commission approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to expand the Administrative Fines Program to include violations resulting from the failure of persons to file, or to timely file, three types of filings: (1) 24-hour reports of independent expenditures, (2) 48-hour reports of independent expenditures, and (3) 24-hour notices of electioneering communications. The program currently includes violations when political committees fail to file timely reports as required by 52 U.S.C. Sec. 30104(a) (requiring political committee treasurers to report receipts and disbursements within certain time periods). The Commission seeks comment on the proposed rule and has made no final decision on the issues presented in this rulemaking. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically via the Commission's website by referencing REG 2013-06. The deadline for comments is 30 days following publication in the Federal Register.
REG 2024-04 (Form 3Z) - Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/mtgdoc-24-23-A.pdf)
The Commission approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to amend its regulations by removing the requirement that the principal campaign committee of a candidate with multiple authorized committees must report information on FEC Form 3-Z. The Commission seeks comment on the proposed rule and has made no final decision on the issues presented in this rulemaking. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically via the Commission's website by referencing REG 2024-04. The deadline for comments is 30 days following publication in the Federal Register.
REG 2016-03 (Political Party Rules) - Draft Notice of Disposition (https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/mtgdoc-24-28-A.pdf)
The Commission approved a notification of disposition of a petition for rulemaking, which was filed in June 2016 by the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. The party subsequently submitted a new petition that revoked and incorporated the substance of the 2016 Petition, and as a result, the Commission is not initiating a rulemaking in response to that petition.
REG 2024-07 (Political Party Rules II) - Draft Notice of Availability (https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/mtgdoc-24-27-A.pdf)
The Commission approved a notice of availability of a Petition for Rulemaking from the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. The party asked the Commission to amend several of its regulations applicable to state, district, or local committees of political parties. The Commission seeks comment on the notice. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically via the Commission's website by referencing REG 2024-07. The deadline for comments is 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Certification of Payment of Presidential Primary Matching Funds (Mike Pence/Mike Pence for President) (https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/mtgdoc-24-26-A.pdf)
On Wednesday, the Commission voted on tally to certify to the Secretary of the Treasury a payment of $617,373.99 from the PECF to Pence and Mike Pence for President.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-approves-advisory-opinion-rulemaking-documents/
FDIC, Agencies Announce Public Outreach Meeting As Part of Their Review of Regulations
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation posted the following joint news release on July 25, 2024, with Treasury Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve System:
Federal bank regulatory agencies will hold a virtual public outreach meeting on September 25, 2024, as part of their review of regulations under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA). EGRPRA requires the agencies, with input from the public, to review their regulations at least once every 10 years to identify any outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation posted the following joint news release on July 25, 2024, with Treasury Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve System:
Federal bank regulatory agencies will hold a virtual public outreach meeting on September 25, 2024, as part of their review of regulations under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA). EGRPRA requires the agencies, with input from the public, to review their regulations at least once every 10 years to identify any outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatoryrequirements applicable to their supervised institutions.
The outreach meeting is an opportunity for interested stakeholders to present their views on the six categories of regulations listed in the first two Federal Register notices (https://egrpra.ffiec.gov/federal-register-notices/fedreg-index.html): Applications and Reporting; Powers and Activities; International Operations; Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers and Employees; and Money Laundering.
Individuals interested in providing oral comments must register (https://cvent.me/DLbo0A) by August 9, 2024, and indicate the regulatory category they would like to discuss. The agencies will notify those individuals selected to provide comments within one month of registration closing.
Advance registration is not required to attend this virtual public meeting as an observer.
The agencies will announce additional public meetings in 2024 and 2025. Details will be available on the EGRPRA website (https://egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/outreach-index.html).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2024/agencies-announce-public-outreach-meeting-part-their-review-regulations
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Urban Rate Survey 2025 Timeline
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 10-90) on July 25, 2024:
* * *
The Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) and the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) hereby initiate the urban rate survey for 2025./1 The information collected in this survey will be used to develop voice and broadband reasonable comparability benchmarks that will be in place in 2025.
In accordance with the URS Order, to set next year's benchmarks, we will be collecting the rates offered by a random sample of providers of
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 10-90) on July 25, 2024:
* * *
The Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) and the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) hereby initiate the urban rate survey for 2025./1 The information collected in this survey will be used to develop voice and broadband reasonable comparability benchmarks that will be in place in 2025.
In accordance with the URS Order, to set next year's benchmarks, we will be collecting the rates offered by a random sample of providers offixed services identified using December 2023 data filed in the FCC Broadband Data Collection (BDC). We will collect separate samples for fixed voice and fixed broadband services in up to 500 urban census tracts for voice services, and up to 2,000 urban census tracts for broadband services./2 Because some providers serve many urban census tracts, these providers may receive surveys for multiple census tracts. Notifications that a provider is required to complete a survey will be sent via email to each selected provider's BDC contact person and certifying official on or about July 25, 2024. The survey consists of an online reporting form, which will be accessible only to the selected providers. The email notification will contain detailed information on how to access and complete the survey online and how to obtain technical assistance. Completed surveys will be due no later than August 30, 2024.
Additional information on the urban rate survey, including the URS Order referenced in this Public Notice, can be found on the Commission's urban rate survey webpage at https://www.fcc.gov/general/urban-rate-survey-data-resources.
For questions about the urban rate survey, please contact Craig Stroup in the Industry Analysis Division of the Office of Economics and Analytics at Craig.Stroup@fcc.gov or (202) 418-0989. For additional information about this Public Notice, please contact Suzanne Yelen at Suzanne.Yelen@fcc.gov or (202) 418-0626.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ In April 2013, WCB adopted an Order setting the form and content for the annual survey of urban rates for fixed voice and fixed broadband residential services. Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 4242 (WCB/WTB 2013) (URS Order).
2/ For this year's survey, on our own motion, we again find good cause to waive, to the extent necessary, the use of 2010 census tracts, as specified in the URS Order. See id. at 4244, para. 10; see also Urban Rate Survey Timeline for 2023, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, DA 22-859, at 1 n.2 (OEA/WCB Aug. 15, 2022). While we are using 2020 census tract boundaries for this year's survey, WCB released a public notice seeking comment on the use of 2020 census tract boundaries, as well as various other issues pertaining to future surveys. See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment On Modifying The Calculation Of Broadband Benchmarks, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, DA 23-274 (WCB May 8, 2023).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-724A1.pdf
FCC TAKES FIRST STEP IN NEW TRANSPARENCY EFFORT TO DISCLOSE AI-GENERATED CONTENT IN POLITICAL ADS
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on July 25, 2024:
* * *
Disclosure Requirements Would Ensure Consumers Are Fully Informed When AI Technology is Used in Political Ads on TV and Radio
* * *
The Federal Communications Commission announced today it will move forward with a proposal to implement new AI transparency requirements. This proposal aims to increase transparency by having those who already have legal duties to file information about their TV and radio advertisements with the FCC to indicate if AI is being used and make on-air
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on July 25, 2024:
* * *
Disclosure Requirements Would Ensure Consumers Are Fully Informed When AI Technology is Used in Political Ads on TV and Radio
* * *
The Federal Communications Commission announced today it will move forward with a proposal to implement new AI transparency requirements. This proposal aims to increase transparency by having those who already have legal duties to file information about their TV and radio advertisements with the FCC to indicate if AI is being used and make on-airdisclosure of AI use. It does not propose the prohibition of such content, only disclosing the use of AI within political ads.
"Today the FCC takes a major step to guard against AI being used by bad actors to spread chaos and confusion in our elections. We propose that political advertisements that run on television and radio should disclose whether AI is being used," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. "There's too much potential for AI to manipulate voices and images in political advertising to do nothing. If a candidate or issue campaign used AI to create an ad, the public has a right to know."
Artificial Intelligence has become powerful enough to mimic human voices and create life-like images. This year in the primary election in New Hampshire, thousands of voters got an AI- generated robocall impersonating President Biden that told them not to vote. This past summer, the campaign of Governor DeSantis was flagged for circulating fake AI-altered images of former President Trump. Facing a rising tide of disinformation, roughly three-quarters of Americans say they are concerned about misleading AI-generated content.
Congress has granted the FCC authority regarding the political messages people see on television, hear over the radio, or receive over the phone. Since the 1930s, the FCC has used this authority to require broadcasters to maintain a publicly available file for political ads. This file has information about who bought a campaign ad, how much they paid for it, and when it ran. Over time Congress expanded these requirements to include ads that run on cable and satellite. These are also the policies that led to what are now familiar on-air disclosures so that every viewer and listener knows who is responsible for every ad.
The Federal Elections Commission is also considering a rulemaking on AI, announcing this year that they expect to act in early summer. In a recent letter to the FCC, the FEC's Vice Chair wrote, "No one agency currently has the jurisdiction or the capacity to address every aspect of this large and complicated issue." While the FEC can regulate AI use in online advertisements for federal candidates, the FCC can focus on the areas where the FEC is not able to act. The FEC does not oversee television and radio stations. Under the law, FEC authority over campaigns is limited to federal political candidates and does not extend to independent issue campaigns or state and local elections.
Nearly half of states across the country have enacted laws to regulate the use of AI and deepfake technology in elections and most of these laws are bipartisan. This FCC proposal would seek to bring uniformity and stability to this patchwork of state laws, seeking to bring greater transparency in our elections.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-404252A1.pdf
FCC Commissioner Simington Issues Statement on Disclosure, Transparency of AI-Generated Content in Political Advertisements
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following dissent on July 25, 2024, by Commissioner Nathan Simington on an action entitled "Disclosure and Transparency of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content in Political Advertisements, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (Docket No. 24-211).
* * *
Generative artificial intelligence is certainly a buzzy topic. But, absent the compelling force of an ongoing crisis or a situation worsening moment-to-moment, the worst time to regulate a domain is when everyone is talking about it. As I mentioned a year ago during the FCC's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following dissent on July 25, 2024, by Commissioner Nathan Simington on an action entitled "Disclosure and Transparency of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content in Political Advertisements, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (Docket No. 24-211).
* * *
Generative artificial intelligence is certainly a buzzy topic. But, absent the compelling force of an ongoing crisis or a situation worsening moment-to-moment, the worst time to regulate a domain is when everyone is talking about it. As I mentioned a year ago during the FCC'sArtificial Intelligence workshop:
[L]et us not cast about for regulatory solutions to problems that do not exist; remedies that may, as yet, be worse than the disease. While machine learning technologies have existed for various decisioning and ranking applications for decades, so-called generative artificial intelligence somehow feels importantly different to us. Scoring and ranking feels different when the output is a Mars sunset, a weird Balenciaga advertising parody, or a limerick. But it might be a difference in degree rather than in kind. I can't say for sure that I know yet. I don't think Sam Altman knows. I'm not even sure that Fei-Fei Li or Yann LeCun knows. And, at any rate, even if we should be led by caution in the absence of information, it is not clear to me that a rush to occupy the regulatory field is tantamount to caution. Of expert consensus and public policy implementation, there is many a slip twixt cup and lip.
From a policy perspective, I worry that this item is one such slip. And while we ought not cry over spilled milk, better not to spill in the first place. Yes, sure: in an ideal world, Americans would be informed about what they're seeing, and whether what they're seeing is a likeness generated by artificial intelligence intended to mislead them. This item, if implemented, might accomplish that for a small subset of possibly misleading advertisements. That is a valid policy desideratum. But how does the item accomplish it? By implementing a requirement that broadcasters seek and obtain a certification from the provider of a political advertisement regarding whether the ad is generated by artificial intelligence, and a disclosure of the same when the ad plays. Let's talk about each of these elements.
First: the item represents a requirement on broadcasters (yes, MVPDs engaged in 'origination programming' are also notionally obligated--no, that is not a particularly broad class of programming), rather than online platforms. Broadcasters are already burdened with a raft of regulatory compliance requirements, and any additional such requirements must, at this point, be justified by dire and immediate social exigency on a par with simultaneous global volcanic eruption or islands of unknown origin rising from the ocean. We are not at that level yet (most uses of generative artificial intelligence in the political context have been, so far, obvious memes), but let us stipulate to it arguendo. Would the proposed regulation serve the policy goal of protecting the American public? Political candidates and other purchasers of legitimate political advertisement, together with broadcasters, are groups that are fairly strongly incented not to get caught using generative artificial intelligence to create fake political ads; and, pace Governor DeSantis, are the ones likeliest to be exposed for having done so. It would seem to me that viral videos shared in the unregulated space of social media by unaccountable entities will be the setting for the moving action of this story.
Second: generated by artificial intelligence. What is 'artificial intelligence' in this context? Don't get me wrong: this item takes a serious stab at defining the term, and it draws on other serious attempts to do so for inspiration. There is some important line-drawing here. Yet a lot of photo, video, and audio editing and engineering software uses "computational technology or other machine-based system" to modify the "depict[ion of] an individual's appearance, speech, or conduct, or an event, circumstance, or situation[.]" A lot. Like, all of it. Given the threat of penalties (not to mention losing the trust of viewers), will broadcasters and political advertisers alike have reason to be overinclusive in their disclosures? Absolutely. Consider the possibility that a consensus might emerge directly contrary to the intended one. Why would political advertisers not just say: let's just label most, or every, ad as generated by artificial intelligence, quickly relegating any such disclosure to a psychological status in the mind of the average American on a par with rapid-fire legalese played at the end of an ad or EULA click- wrap? Or, consider further! Suppose I am a political advertiser managing both a broadcast and digital advertising campaign, and the same ads are appearing to the same viewers--sometimes placed on a broadcast network, sometimes digitally--and some of those same ads have an artificial intelligence disclosure, and some do not. Is that not likely to create confusion? Maybe even mistrust? And, if so, to sidestep that mistrust entirely, maybe I don't run some of my ads--the ones required to be labeled as generated by artificial intelligence--on broadcast networks. Maybe I don't run any on broadcast networks at all.
Okay, that may be a bit of catastrophizing: I don't think political spend on broadcast will decline as a result of these new requirements. But what these requirements do is provide yet another small reason to shift programming to online and streaming platforms and away from the regulated space of broadcast. That secular trend is happening anyway, and I don't think the occasion warrants additional burden. Atlantis, to my knowledge, remains beneath the waves.
Third: a disclosure when the ad plays. We've been talking policy, but now let's talk about our statute. Our authority to accomplish this regulation doesn't exist. We are relying on Section 303(r), which provides that the Commission may, as "public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, . . . [] make such regulation and prescribe such restrictions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act[.]" Okay. This regulation isn't necessary to "carry out the provisions of this Act." We then go on to note that we have used Section 303(r) to act in the past. Well, all right. What 303(r) precedent justifies today's proposal? We cite the adoption of a policy statement regarding children's programming immediately before the 1990 adoption of the Children's Television Act (policy statements, while generally influential in the Commission's thinking, are not rules) and a raft of broadcast ownership restrictions. Among the several nominally precedential broadcast ownership restrictions, we cite the cross-ownership rule. That feels bizarre to me, akin to pointing to a concussion we got on the bunny hill as evidence that we are allowed to ski. Suffice it to say, I think that this cited authority is fairly weak tea, and that the ancient social conditions occasioning broadcast ownership restrictions (which, of course, no longer obtain) were far more real that the speculative harms associated with today's proposal. We also ask whether Section 315, which authorizes the Commission to require broadcasters to maintain a political file and implement political advertising carriage requirements, might also support our effort. Suffice it to say, I am a skeptic that the carriage and political file rules in our Act--none of which mention authority to require disclosures of the sort contemplated here--authorize the step we take today. And 315(b)(2)(C), the "nearest neighbor" (apologies--we are discussing artificial intelligence, after all) to the disclosure rules proposed today, just does not apply. And I am not the only skeptic! As Sean Cooksey, Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), recently noted in a letter to Chairwoman Rosenworcel:
Indeed, federal courts of appeals have upheld the FEC's unique authority to regulate political disclaimers against other agencies' attempts to circumvent or supplement our rules, concluding that "the FEC is the exclusive administrative arbiter of questions concerning the name identifications and disclaimers" for political communications. Consequently, I maintain that the FCC lacks the legal authority to promulgate conflicting disclaimers requirements only for political communications.
(Citation omitted.) Chairman Cooksey goes on to provide that the FEC is engaged in its own rulemaking contemplating the regulation of artificial intelligence in political communications. Why risk stepping in front of an ongoing rulemaking of a sister agency, addressing squarely the same question, over that agency's objection, relying on uncertain authority? I worry that the answer must be political.
The rules this item proposes threaten simultaneously to accomplish too much and not enough, leaning all the while on irrelevant or weak authority, in direct defiance of a sister agency's legitimate concerns. I have no choice but to dissent.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-74A4.pdf
CPSC Warns Consumers to Immediately Stop Using ZonLi Home Baby Loungers Due to Suffocation, Fall and Entrapment Hazards
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Violations of Federal Safety Regulations for Infant Sleep Products; Sold on Amazon.com
* * *
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is warning consumers to immediately stop using and dispose of ZonLi Home Baby Loungers because they pose suffocation, fall and entrapment hazards for infants.
The baby loungers violate federal safety regulations for Infant Sleep Products because the sides are too low to contain the infant; the sleeping pad is too thick, posing a suffocation hazard;
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 26 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Violations of Federal Safety Regulations for Infant Sleep Products; Sold on Amazon.com
* * *
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is warning consumers to immediately stop using and dispose of ZonLi Home Baby Loungers because they pose suffocation, fall and entrapment hazards for infants.
The baby loungers violate federal safety regulations for Infant Sleep Products because the sides are too low to contain the infant; the sleeping pad is too thick, posing a suffocation hazard;an infant could fall out of an enclosed opening at the foot of the lounger or become entrapped; and the loungers do not have a stand, posing a fall hazard if used on elevated surfaces. These violations create an unsafe sleeping environment for infants.
The loungers were sold online at Amazon.com from December 2022 through February 2024 for between about $27 and $50. "ZONLI HOME" is printed on a tag sewn onto the interior of the lounger's removable pink fabric cover. CPSC tested the pink baby lounger, and CPSC is aware ZonLi Home branded baby loungers were also sold on Amazon.com in additional fabric colors and prints including beige, mint green, natural and pink elephant.
CPSC issued a Notice of Violation to a seller of the ZonLi Home Baby Lounger, Jiujiangsanyinglaowufuwuyouxiangongsi, of China, doing business as Sarah-Home and Kuang JinLong, but the firm has not agreed to recall these loungers or offer a remedy to consumers. In addition, ZonLi Home baby loungers were sold by several other sellers on Amazon.com, including Thirdream, qinghua che doing business as ZONLI HOME, yongxiang wang doing business as ZoniLi Home, Viki Direct, and AmazingDealz1.
CPSC urges consumers to stop using and destroy all ZonLi Home baby loungers immediately. To destroy the product, first remove the fabric cover. Cut up the lounger cover and interior sleeping pad, and then dispose of the pieces in the trash or textile recycling, in accordance with local garbage collection policies.
Although the Infant Sleep Products regulation is applicable to products manufactured on or after June 23, 2022, these loungers do not have a required date of manufacture labeled on the product or packaging, and therefore, CPSC urges consumers to stop using all ZonLi Home baby loungers. Further, CPSC continues to advise firms to stop sale of non-compliant infant sleep products regardless of the date of manufacture.
Parents and caregivers are reminded:
* The best place for an infant to sleep is on a firm, flat surface in a crib, bassinet or play yard.
* Use a fitted sheet only and never add blankets, pillows, padded crib bumpers, or other items to an infant's sleeping environment.
* Infants should always be placed to sleep on their back. Infants who fall asleep in an inclined or upright position should be moved to a safe sleep environment with a firm, flat surface such as a crib, bassinet or play yard.
Report any incidents involving injury or product defect to CPSC at http://www.SaferProducts.gov.
* * *
About the U.S. CPSC
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risk of injury or death associated with the use of thousands of types of consumer products. Deaths, injuries, and property damage from consumer product-related incidents cost the nation more than $1 trillion annually. CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products has contributed to a decline in the rate of injuries associated with consumer products over the past 50 years.
Federal law prohibits any person from selling products subject to a Commission ordered recall or a voluntary recall undertaken in consultation with the CPSC.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2024/CPSC-Warns-Consumers-to-Immediately-Stop-Using-ZonLi-Home-Baby-Loungers-Due-to-Suffocation-Fall-and-Entrapment-Hazards-Violations-of-Federal-Safety-Regulations-for-Infant-Sleep-Products-Sold-on-Amazon-com
