Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
USITC Votes to Continue Investigations on CBS From China
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release on June 18, 2026:
* * *
USITC Votes to Continue Investigations on CBS from China
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today determined there is a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry is materially injured due to imports of n-cyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-sulfenamide (CBS) from China that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the government of China.
Chairman David S. Johanson and Commissioners Jason E. Kearns and Amy A. Karpel
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release on June 18, 2026:
* * *
USITC Votes to Continue Investigations on CBS from China
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today determined there is a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry is materially injured due to imports of n-cyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-sulfenamide (CBS) from China that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the government of China.
Chairman David S. Johanson and Commissioners Jason E. Kearns and Amy A. Karpelvoted in the affirmative.
As a result of the Commission's affirmative determinations, the U.S. Department of Commerce will continue its investigations of imports of this product from China.
The Commission's public report, N-Cyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-Sulfenamide (CBS) from China (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-797 and 731-TA-1793 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 5757, June 2026), will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the investigations.
The report will be available on the USITC website by July 23, 2026.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0618_68773.htm
FCC Issues Letter on Cadillac Telecasting
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following letter (Docket No. DA 26-612):
* * *
To: Cadillac Telecasting Co., Bolea Revocable Trust, c/o Elizabeth E. Spainhour, Brooks Pierce LLP, 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700, Raleigh, NC 27601
Mario Peter Iacobelli Revocable Trust, c/o Tim Nelson, Brooks Pierce LLP, 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700, Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: Transfer of Control of Cadillac Telecasting Co.
LMS File No. 0000288234
Dear Counsel:
The Video Division, Media Bureau, has before it the above-captioned application seeking
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following letter (Docket No. DA 26-612):
* * *
To: Cadillac Telecasting Co., Bolea Revocable Trust, c/o Elizabeth E. Spainhour, Brooks Pierce LLP, 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700, Raleigh, NC 27601
Mario Peter Iacobelli Revocable Trust, c/o Tim Nelson, Brooks Pierce LLP, 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700, Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: Transfer of Control of Cadillac Telecasting Co.
LMS File No. 0000288234
Dear Counsel:
The Video Division, Media Bureau, has before it the above-captioned application seekingconsent to the transfer of control of Cadillac Telecasting Co. (Cadillac), the licensee of television station WFQXTV, Cadillac, Michigan (WFQX-TV or Station), and its full power satellite WFUP(TV), Vanderbilt, Michigan, from the Bolea Revocable Trust (Bolea Trust) to the Mario Peter Iacobelli Revocable Trust (Iacobelli Trust, and, together with Cadillac and the Bolea Trust, the Applicants)./1 DIRECTV, LLC (DIRECTV), filed a petition to deny the Application./2 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Petition and grant the Application.
Background. The Iacobelli Trust ultimately controls Heritage Broadcasting Company of Michigan (Heritage), the licensee of television station WWTV(TV), Cadillac, Michigan, and its full power satellite WWUP-TV, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. If it acquires WFQX-TV,/3 the Iacobelli Trust would have an attributable interest in two television stations in the Traverse City-Cadillac, MI Designated Market Area (DMA)./4
The Local Television Ownership Rule, as reflected in the Code of Federal Regulations, provides that an entity may own two television stations licensed in the same DMA if: "(i) the digital noise limited service contours of the stations . . . do not overlap; or (ii) at the time the application to acquire . . . the station(s) is filed, at least one of the stations is not ranked among the top-four stations in the DMA, based on the Sunday to Saturday, 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. day-part audience share ratings averaged over a 12-month period immediately preceding the date of the application, as measured by Nielsen Media Research or by any comparable professional, accepted audience ratings service."/5 However, the court in Zimmer Radio vacated the latter provision--the Top-Four Prohibition--such that ownership of any two stations in a single DMA is now rule compliant (the Two-Station Limit)./6
Pleadings. DIRECTV asserts in its Petition that it has standing to file, alleging direct economic harm due to higher input prices that it asserts it will have to pay as a result of the transaction./7 DIRECTV further claims that it also has standing as a competitor, citing broadcasters' arguments in rulemaking proceedings that multichannel video programming distributors (MVPD) compete with over-the-air broadcasters for viewers as they simultaneously rely on broadcasters as program suppliers./8 DIRECTV maintains that Zimmer Radio does not affect the Applicants' affirmative obligation under section 310(d) of the Communications Acts of 1934, as amended (Act), to show that the proposed license transfer is in the public interest./9 DIRECTV asserts that the Applicants fail to make any public interest showing despite the clear harm arising from creating a new "Big Four" duopoly./10 Specifically, DIRECTV argues that the evidence shows that local television consolidation gives broadcasters more leverage to charge higher retransmission fees, which leads to higher bills for MVPD customers./11 DIRECTV further contends that the transaction will lead to higher prices for DIRECTV and its customers because Heritage, via growth and the resultant diminished competition, would command higher retransmission consent rates than it had previously./12
The Applicants respond that "[e]ach of Heritage and Cadillac is a small, closely-held business owning exactly one full-service television station and one satellite (repeater) in northern Michigan, in the 116th-ranked Traverse City-Cadillac DMA" and that calling DIRECTV's contention that combining the two would make consumer price increases inevitable "a stretch would be a serious understatement."/13 They further contend that "[w]hat has become increasingly obvious in recent weeks is that DIRECTV, inevitably, will reflexively oppose every single proposed, top-four-station in-market combination."/14 The Applicants state that the transaction complies with all Commission rules, including the post-Zimmer Radio Local Television Ownership Rule./15 They also contend that the acquisition will present no harm/16 and that it will, in fact, strengthen WFQX-TV and its service to the Traverse City-Cadillac, MI DMA, because the acquisition would reduce a small market station's competitive disadvantage as it confronts the competitive headwinds created by Big Tech giants and the "[e]ver-escalating programming acquisition costs [that] . . . gobble up an increasingly large percentage of local stations' diminishing revenues."/17 Finally, the Applicants assert that the transaction will produce public interest benefits by strengthening WFQX-TV and WWTV by "being able to combine newsrooms and staff and other resources across a region this large," thus being able to share all overhead and allow for some cost savings "that Heritage intends to invest into local programming and service, allowing for deeper and higher quality local news coverage. . . ."/18
In reply, DIRECTV states that, while the "Applicants are smaller than some of the other broadcasters that have sought to create Big Four duopolies in other markets across the country," the competitive analysis regarding local consolidation . . . does not depend on the size of the broadcaster involved."/19 It further contends that Applicants ignore or minimize the harms established in the Petition with regard to retransmission consent and fail to establish the public interest benefits associated with this transaction./20 DIRECTV also argues that there is no "retransmission consent exception" to the Commission's transaction review; the Commission's public interest analysis must address DIRECTV's contention that the transaction would result in an increase in retransmission consent rates./21
Standing. Under section 309(d) of the Act, only a "party in interest" has standing to file a petition to deny./22 In addition to containing the necessary factual allegations to support a prima facie case that grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, a petition to deny must contain specific allegations of fact demonstrating that the petitioner is a party in interest./23 The allegations of fact, except for those of which official notice may be taken, must be supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury of someone with personal knowledge of the facts alleged./24 In general, a petitioner in a transfer or assignment proceeding also must allege and prove that: (1) it has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact; (2) there is a causal link between the proposed transfer and the injury in fact; and (3) that not granting the transfer or assignment would remedy or prevent the injury in fact./25 In the broadcast regulatory context, standing is generally shown in one of three ways: (1) as a competitor in the market subject to signal interference; (2) as a competitor in the market subject to economic harm; or (3) as a resident of the station's service area or regular listener of the station./26 In the case of viewer standing, the petitioner must allege that he or she is a resident of the station's service area or a regular viewer of the station./27 An organization can establish standing on behalf of its members if it provides an affidavit or declaration "of one or more individuals entitled to standing indicating that the group represents local residents and that the petition is filed on their behalf."/28
We find that DIRECTV has demonstrated that it meets the requirements for standing with regard to the Application. In its Petition, DIRECTV claims that grant of the transaction will have specific, negative effects on it, specifically related to retransmission consent fee negotiations, and that those harms can be cured by dismissal or denial of the Application./29 Based on these claims, and consistent with precedent, we find that DIRECTV has met the requirements for standing./30
Discussion. Section 310(d) of the Act provides that no station license shall be transferred or assigned except upon application to the Commission and upon a finding by the Commission "that the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served thereby."/31 In making this determination, we first assess whether the proposed transaction complies with the specific provisions of the Act, other applicable statutes, and the Commission's rules./32 If the proposed transaction does not violate a statute or rule, we then consider whether the transaction could result in public interest harms by substantially frustrating or impairing the objectives or implementation of the Act or related statutes./33 For the reasons explained below, we find that the proposed transaction fully complies with the Commission's rules, including the post-Zimmer Radio Local Television Ownership Rule, and that there are no issues or potential public interest harms identified in the record that would require further consideration. Notably, while the Commission will consider transaction-specific objections to otherwise rule-compliant transactions, we find that DIRECTV has failed to advance any such objections. Accordingly, we conclude that grant of the Application will result in public interest benefits and serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
In recent decisions issued subsequent to the close of the pleading cycle in this proceeding, we have considered and rejected substantially similar arguments raised by DIRECTV. On February 3, 2026, the Bureau issued the Sinclair-Cunningham-Roberts Letter Order, which addressed and rejected many of the arguments presented by DIRECTV here./34 In that decision, we traced the history of the Local Television Ownership Rule, from its initial adoption in the 1999 Television Ownership Order/35 through the Eighth Circuit's vacatur of the Top-Four Prohibition, and recognized that "the Two-Station Limit, without restriction, now is the Local Television Ownership Rule."/36 We also rejected the contention that the Commission must engage in a balancing process pursuant to section 310(d) of the Act before granting an application, explaining that "[w]here the Commission has adopted a specific, numerical ownership limit, as it has with the Two-Station Limit, an applicant satisfies its initial burden of showing that the transaction is in compliance with the Act and the Commission's rules and policies related to competition and diversity by correctly certifying compliance with that limit."/37 On February 20, 2026, largely in reliance on the Sinclair-Cunningham-Roberts Letter Order, we issued the Sinclair-HSH-CunninghamDeerfield Letter Order, rejecting claims raised by DIRECTV, again similar to those raised in its Petition here.
We find that the Application fully complies with the Two-Station Limit, and DIRECTV has failed to provide any transaction-specific arguments that raise a substantial and material question of fact sufficient to show that grant of the Application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest./38 The Petition focuses primarily on the retransmission consent harms raised by the proposed combinations./39 However, just as we found in the Sinclair-Cunningham-Roberts Letter Order and again in the Sinclair-HSH-Cunningham-Deerfield Letter Order that similar concerns were speculative, we reach the same determination here./40 And again, as we explained in the Sinclair-Cunningham-Roberts Letter Order, the Commission has found on multiple occasions in the past that issues of broad applicability, such as the effect of common ownership of two top-four stations on the market for retransmission consent, are best handled in a rulemaking of industry-wide effect./41 We emphasize again that we will not consider such issues in an adjudication involving rule-compliant broadcast television duopolies./42
Finally, based on our own review of the proposed transactions, we have not identified any issues or potential public interest harms that would require further consideration. To the contrary, we find that that operational "efficiencies allowed by common ownership" could benefit viewers as Heritage looks to reinvest those efficiencies "into sustaining and, potentially improving, its local news operations."/43
Accordingly, having reviewed the Application and the record in this matter, IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons specified herein, the Application (LMS File No. 0000288234) IS GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for continued operation of WFUP(TV), Vanderbilt, Michigan, as a satellite station of WFQX-TV, Cadillac, Michigan, pursuant to the "satellite exception" of Note 5 to section 73.3555 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec. 73.3555, IS GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Deny filed by DIRECTV, LLC, IS DENIED. These actions are taken pursuant to sections 0.61 and 0.283 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 0.61, 0.283, and sections 4(i) and (j), and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 154(i), 154(j), 310(d).
Sincerely,
/s/ David J. Brown, Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-612A1.pdf
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Veseacky Pajama Sets
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Veseacky Pajama Sets
Hazard: The pajama sets violate the mandatory safety standards for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of serious injury or death to children from burns.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 18, 2026
Units: About 3,700 units
Consumer Contact: Veseacky by email at Veseackypajamarecall@outlook.com.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Veseacky pajama sets. The pajama sets consist of a long-sleeve, button-up top with a front pocket and matching
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Veseacky Pajama Sets
Hazard: The pajama sets violate the mandatory safety standards for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of serious injury or death to children from burns.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 18, 2026
Units: About 3,700 units
Consumer Contact: Veseacky by email at Veseackypajamarecall@outlook.com.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Veseacky pajama sets. The pajama sets consist of a long-sleeve, button-up top with a front pocket and matchingpants. They were sold in various colors and prints. The pajama sets have the size and care instructions printed on a sewn-in side seam label. The model number "C0001-NB 130-LCUS" is on a barcode sticker on the packaging.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled pajama sets immediately and contact Veseacky for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to destroy the pajamas by cutting them in half and send a photo of the destroyed pajama set to Veseackypajamarecall@outlook.com. Consumers should then dispose of the destroyed product.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: Amazon.com from October 2020 through January 2026 for about $29.
Importer(s): Shenzhen City ShengRu Fu Shi Company Ltd., doing business as Veseacky, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-564
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Veseacky-Pajama-Sets-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Burn-Hazard-Violate-Mandatory-Standards-for-Childrens-Sleepwear
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Michley Children's Pajamas
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Michley Children's Pajamas
Hazard: The recalled children's pajamas violate the mandatory flammability standard for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of serious burn injuries or death.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 18, 2026
Units: About 160
Consumer Contact: SHEIN toll-free at 833-853-8668 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, email at uscsteam@shein.com, or online at https://us.shein.com/product-recalls/list or www.us.shein.com and click on "Product Recalls"
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Michley Children's Pajamas
Hazard: The recalled children's pajamas violate the mandatory flammability standard for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of serious burn injuries or death.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 18, 2026
Units: About 160
Consumer Contact: SHEIN toll-free at 833-853-8668 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, email at uscsteam@shein.com, or online at https://us.shein.com/product-recalls/list or www.us.shein.com and click on "Product Recalls"at the bottom of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Michley-branded children's pajamas. The recalled one-piece pajamas were sold in green with a dinosaur patch, pink with a bunny patch, yellow with a giraffe patch and purple with a rabbit patch; and in sizes 80 through 130. "Michley" and the size are printed on a sewn-in seam label.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled pajamas immediately and contact SHEIN for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to destroy the pajamas by cutting them in half and send a photo of the destroyed pajamas to uscsteam@shein.com. Consumers should then dispose of the destroyed product.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: SHEIN.com from May 2025 through December 2025 for about $25. The third-party seller has not responded to CPSC's Notice of Violation. CPSC issued a Product Safety Warning for products sold by the seller.
Importer(s): SHEIN Distribution Corporation, of Los Angeles, California
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-567
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/SHEIN-Distribution-Corporation-Recalls-Michley-Childrens-Pajamas-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Burn-Hazard-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Childrens-Sleepwear
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving GOPO TOYS Pull String Teething Toys
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: GOPO TOYS Pull String Teething Toys
Hazard: The recalled teething toys violate the mandatory standard for toys because the silicone strings are smaller and longer than permitted. The strings can reach the back of children's throat and become lodged, posing a serious risk of respiratory distress and deadly choking hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 18, 2026
Units: About 70,410
Consumer Contact: GOPO Toys at 800-445-2344, email at recalls@gopotoys.com, or online at
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: GOPO TOYS Pull String Teething Toys
Hazard: The recalled teething toys violate the mandatory standard for toys because the silicone strings are smaller and longer than permitted. The strings can reach the back of children's throat and become lodged, posing a serious risk of respiratory distress and deadly choking hazard.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 18, 2026
Units: About 70,410
Consumer Contact: GOPO Toys at 800-445-2344, email at recalls@gopotoys.com, or online athttps://recall.gopotoys.com for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves GOPO TOYS pull string teething toys. The teething toys consist of an off-white disc shape with a grey ball in the center and six multi-colored, silicone tentacle-looking pull strings that run through the ball. The disc has seven soft push buttons. The brand name and "Pull String Toy" is printed on the front of the product packaging, and the batch number 250905, 250530, 250120, 240315, 231005 or 230610 on the back of packaging.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the teething toy immediately, take it away from children and contact GOPO Toys to receive a full refund. Consumers will be asked to destroy the toy by cutting all silicone strings and writing in permanent marker "DESTROYED" on the main body of the toy and send a photo of the destroyed toy to recalls@gopotoys.com. Consumers should then dispose of the destroyed product.
Incidents/Injuries: The firm is aware of three reports of the toy's strings reaching the back of a child's throat, resulting in respiratory distress or choking.
Sold Online At: Amazon.com from August 2023 through March 2026 for between $11 to $15.
Distributor(s): GOPO Toys LLC, of San Bernardino, California
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-562
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/GOPO-Toys-Recalls-Pull-String-Teething-Toys-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Choking-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Toys
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving CooCooBaby Baby Loungers
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: CooCooBaby Baby Loungers
Hazard: The baby loungers violate the mandatory standard for Infant Sleep Products because the sides are shorter than the minimum side height limit to secure the infant; the sleeping pad's thickness exceeds the maximum limit, posing a suffocation hazard; and an infant could fall out of an enclosed opening at the foot of the lounger or become entrapped. The portable loungers do not have a stand, posing a fall hazard. These violations create an unsafe
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: CooCooBaby Baby Loungers
Hazard: The baby loungers violate the mandatory standard for Infant Sleep Products because the sides are shorter than the minimum side height limit to secure the infant; the sleeping pad's thickness exceeds the maximum limit, posing a suffocation hazard; and an infant could fall out of an enclosed opening at the foot of the lounger or become entrapped. The portable loungers do not have a stand, posing a fall hazard. These violations create an unsafesleeping environment for infants, posing a risk of serious injury or death.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: June 18, 2026
Units: About 2,355
Consumer Contact: Email at support@coocoobabyofficial.com, or online at https://coocoobabyofficial.com/pages/recall-notice or coocoobabyofficial.com for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves the "Classic" and "Deluxe" CooCooBaby Baby Loungers. The recalled baby loungers are made of a foam sleeping pad and padded bumpers with a cloth cover and were sold in multiple styles and colors. The Deluxe lounger has buttons at the foot, and the Classic lounger has a ribbon tie at the foot. "CooCooBaby" and the manufacturing information can be found on tags on the side of both baby loungers.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the baby loungers immediately and contact CooCooBaby for a full refund. Consumers should remove the sleeping pad, cut up the sides of the baby lounger and the sleeping pad and email a photo of the destroyed lounger to support@coocoobabyofficial.com to obtain a full refund issued to the original payment method.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: CooCooBabyOfficial.com and Amazon.com from December 2024 through March 2026 for between $35 and $70.
Retailer: CooCooBaby, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-569
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/CooCooBaby-Baby-Loungers-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Suffocation-and-Fall-Hazards-Violates-Mandatory-Standard-for-Infant-Sleep-Products
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving BABESIDE Doll & Stroller Toys
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: BABESIDE Doll and Stroller Toys
Hazard: The recalled toys violate the small parts ban because they are intended for children under three and the small pacifier poses a deadly choking hazard to young children. In addition, the eyes on the plush bear can detach also posing a choking hazard.
Remedy: Repair
Recall Date: June 18, 2026
Units: About 2,200
Consumer Contact: HYBDOLLS via email at support@babeside.com, or online at www.Babeside.com/pages/product-recall or at www.Babeside.com
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: BABESIDE Doll and Stroller Toys
Hazard: The recalled toys violate the small parts ban because they are intended for children under three and the small pacifier poses a deadly choking hazard to young children. In addition, the eyes on the plush bear can detach also posing a choking hazard.
Remedy: Repair
Recall Date: June 18, 2026
Units: About 2,200
Consumer Contact: HYBDOLLS via email at support@babeside.com, or online at www.Babeside.com/pages/product-recall or at www.Babeside.comand click on "Recall" at the top or bottom of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves BABESIDE-branded doll and stroller toys. The play toy sets consist of a pink with red stroller, a baby doll dressed in pink and 23 accessories, including a pink and white plate with a fork and spoon, orange juice and milk feeding bottles, a toy pacifier with clip, a milk carton, a bib, a diaper bag, a diaper, a tissue bag with tissues, lotion and baby powder bottles, a small plush bear, a pair of shoes, two sets of clothes and a soft carrier.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled toys' plush bear and pacifier immediately, take them away from children and contact HYBDOLLS for free replacement similar toy accessories, including shipping. Consumers will be asked to destroy the toy's plush bear and pacifier by cutting the bear in half and writing in permanent marker "X" on the pacifier and send a photo of the destroyed and marked accessories to support@babeside.com. Consumers should then dispose of the destroyed accessories.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: Amazon from July 2025 through January 2026 for about $40.
Manufacturer(s): Huizhou Huitong Crafts Co. Ltd., of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-561
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/BABESIDE-Doll-and-Stroller-Childrens-Toys-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Choking-Hazard-Violate-Small-Parts-Ban-Sold-on-Amazon-by-HYBDOLLS
