[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4983-H4988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY INSPECTION ENHANCEMENT ACT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 8134) to support the Consumer Product Safety Commission's
capability to protect consumers from unsafe consumer products, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 8134
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Product Safety
Inspection Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 2. ENHANCED RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY.
Section 17 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
2066) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(i) Enhanced Risk Assessment Methodology.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of the Consumer Product Safety Inspection
Enhancement Act, the Commission shall enhance targeting,
surveillance, and screening of consumer products entering the
United States at ports of entry, including ports of entry for
de minimis shipments, by--
``(A) working in consultation with Customs and Border
Protection to--
``(i) access and leverage all available data, including
manifest data, to enhance targeting of violative consumer
products, including de minimis shipments containing violative
consumer products;
``(ii) access and leverage intellectual property rights
seizure data to target products that may have both
intellectual property rights infringements and consumer
product safety violations;
``(iii) prioritize shipments coming from the People's
Republic of China; and
``(iv) use the Participating Government Agencies Message
Set, or any successor program, and additional consumer
product specific data elements, including certificates of
compliance and any other data that the Commission needs, to
help risk assess and target violative consumer products; and
``(B) building and improving information technology systems
to support electronic access to and connection with the data
and targeting systems associated with express consignment
carrier facilities, international mail facilities, electronic
commerce platforms, and other applicable system participants.
``(2) Electronic filing of certificates of compliance.--
Beginning not later than 2 years after the date of enactment
of the Consumer Product Safety Inspection Enhancement Act,
certificates of compliance shall be filed electronically for
consumer products intended for entry into the United States
to enhance risk assessment and target de minimis shipments
containing violative consumer products.
``(3) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
``(A) the term `de minimis shipments' means articles
containing consumer products entering the United States under
the de minimis value exemption in 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C);
``(B) the term `express consignment carrier facility' means
a separate or shared specialized facility approved by the
port director solely for the examination and release of
express consignment shipments;
``(C) the term `ports of entry for de minimis shipments'
means environments where de minimis shipments are processed,
including express consignment carrier facilities,
international mail facilities, and air cargo facilities;
``(D) the term `violative consumer products' means consumer
products in violation of an applicable consumer product
safety rule under this Act or any similar rule, regulation,
standard, or ban under any other Act enforced by the
Commission.''.
SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CPSC SURVEILLANCE PERSONNEL AT KEY PORTS
OF ENTRY FOR DE MINIMIS SHIPMENTS.
The Commission shall hire, train, and assign not fewer than
16 full-time equivalent personnel during each fiscal year and
to be stationed at or supporting efforts at ports of entry,
including ports of entry for de minimis shipments, for the
purpose of identifying, assessing, and addressing shipments
of violative consumer products. Such hiring shall continue
during each fiscal year until the total number of full-time
equivalent personnel equals and sustains the staffing
requirements identified in the report to Congress required
under section 4.
SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall transmit to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, and make publicly available, a
study and report assessing the risk to consumers associated
with the targeting and screening of de minimis e-commerce
shipments.
(b) Report Requirements.--In the study and report, the
Commission shall--
(1) examine a sampling of de minimis shipments at a
sufficient and representative sample of all types of ports of
entry where de minimis shipments are processed, including
[[Page H4984]]
express consignment carrier facilities, international mail
facilities, and air cargo facilities to assess the extent to
which such shipments include violative consumer products;
(2) examine a sampling of shipments coming from the
People's Republic of China to identify trends associated with
the shipment of products containing both intellectual
property rights infringements and consumer product safety
violations;
(3) detail plans and timelines to effectively address
targeting and screening of de minimis shipments to prevent
the entry of violative consumer products entering into the
commerce of the United States taking into consideration
projected growth in e-commerce;
(4) establish metrics by which to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Commission efforts to reduce the number
of de minimis shipments containing violative consumer
products from entering into the commerce of the United
States; and
(5) assess projected technology and resources, including
staffing requirements necessary to implement such plans.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``Commission'' means the Consumer Product
Safety Commission;
(2) the term ``de minimis shipments'' means articles
containing consumer products entering the United States under
the de minimis value exemption in 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C);
(3) the term ``ports of entry for de minimis shipments''
means environments where de minimis shipments are processed,
including express consignment carrier facilities,
international mail facilities, and air cargo facilities;
(4) the term ``violative consumer products'' means consumer
products in violation of an applicable consumer product
safety rule under the Consumer Product Safety Act or any
similar rule, regulation, standard, or ban under any other
Act enforced by the Commission;
(5) the term ``electronic commerce platform'' or ``e-
commerce platform'' means any electronically accessed
platform that includes publicly interactive features that
allow for arranging the sale, purchase, payment, or shipping
of goods, or that enables a person other than an operator of
such platform to sell or offer to sell physical goods to
consumers located in the United States; and
(6) the term ``express consignment carrier facility'' means
a separate or shared specialized facility approved by the
port director solely for the examination and release of
express consignment shipments.
SEC. 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit, affect, or
conflict with any other authority of the Commission or any
other statutory requirements governing the Commission.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 8134.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 8134,
the Consumer Product Safety Inspection Enhancement Act, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this bipartisan legislation was introduced by Consumer
Protection and Commerce Subcommittee chair Jan Schakowsky and
Representative Jeff Duncan and advanced out of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce on September 9 by a voice vote.
This important legislation will empower the Consumer Product Safety
Commission with the data it needs to protect Americans from the flood
of unsafe products entering our Nation from overseas, especially e-
commerce shipments entering under the de minimis value exemption. It
will also help ensure the Commission has adequate staffing to support
these efforts.
Madam Speaker, e-commerce spending has risen steeply during the
COVID-19 pandemic as Americans turn to online shopping to safely get
needed goods or to find scarce supplies. Even before the pandemic,
however, the CPSC was projecting that the number of e-commerce
shipments to the United States would soon reach 60 million per year and
represent well over 50 percent of the total volume of imports under the
agency's jurisdiction.
Despite the rapid growth in e-commerce, these shipments entering the
U.S. from overseas continue to face little scrutiny at our ports and
often contain fake or dangerous products.
Currently, CPSC inspectors are present at only 6 percent of U.S.
ports and concentrated only at seaports that receive large, high-value
shipping containers. The agency virtually has no presence at the kinds
of ports where millions of e-commerce shipments enter the United
States, such as express courier facilities, international mail
facilities, and airports.
We need CPSC inspectors stationed in all these types of places to
prevent unsafe products from entering the U.S. and harming Americans.
CPSC will also need more data and more advanced IT infrastructure in
order to properly assess risk and target potentially unsafe e-commerce
shipments.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 8134 addresses all these issues. It expands
CPSC's presence at ports, to include the type of ports where e-commerce
shipments enter. It also empowers the CPSC to collect the data it needs
to identify and block e-commerce shipments that disregard our consumer
product safety laws and standards.
This bill would protect American consumers from unsafe consumer
products, at the same time an expanded and enhanced import surveillance
program will also protect manufacturers and retailers from having to
carry out costly recalls.
Madam Speaker, I, again, commend Chairwoman Schakowsky and
Representative Duncan for introducing this bill. I also thank Ranking
Member Walden and subcommittee Ranking Member Rodgers for working with
us to move this bill through the Committee on Energy and Commerce on a
bipartisan basis.
Madam Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this measure, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 8134, the Consumer Product Safety
Inspection Enhancement Act.
This bill will give the Consumer Product Safety Commission important
tools to crack down on unsafe and counterfeit products at our Nation's
ports.
As dangerous items and products that infringe on our companies'
intellectual property flow into the country from China and other
countries, it is essential that we empower the CPSC to find these
products before they enter the country.
Madam Speaker, I applaud Mr. Duncan and Chair Schakowsky for their
leadership, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the subcommittee
chairwoman.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to
me. I rise in strong support of H.R. 8134, the Consumer Product Safety
Inspection Enhancement Act, a bill that I introduced with my friend and
colleague, Jeff Duncan.
E-commerce spending is surging right now during the COVID-19 pandemic
as Americans turn to online shopping for household essentials, personal
protective equipment, back-to-school supplies, and more.
However, e-commerce shipments entering the United States from
overseas face little scrutiny and often contain fake or dangerous
products. It is time that we empower the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to collect the data it needs to identify and block e-
commerce shipments that can harm consumers and that don't offer the
protection and safety that they need.
{time} 1330
This legislation would give the CPSC the data that it needs to
protect Americans from the flood of unsafe products that are coming in.
This legislation is a critical first step to restoring confidence in
e-commerce sites, but this bill is not a silver bullet. Much more needs
to happen.
Earlier this month, CNN reported that products sold on Amazon had
burst into flames, causing significant bodily harm and property damage
as well.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record that article.
[[Page H4985]]
[From CNN, Sept. 10, 2020]
Dozens of Amazon's Own Products Have Been Reported as Dangerous--
Melting, Exploding or Even Bursting into Flames. Many are still on the
market
(By Blake Ellis and Melanie Hicken)
(CNN) When firefighters arrived at Austin Parra's home on
January 12, 2017, they could see smoke and the charred
remnants of an office chair outside.
Parra, then 20, had been transported to the hospital. His
mother explained to firefighters that her son's chair caught
on fire while he was sleeping, and he was burned as he
carried the flaming chair outside.
Anthony Dignoti, the Wethersfield, Connecticut, fire
marshal in charge of investigating the incident, could see
that the door and door frame were damaged by the fire as
well. He noticed bowls strewn about, which he wrote in his
official report had been filled with water in an attempt to
extinguish the fire.
The fire at Austin Parra's home originated with an
AmazonBasics USB cord, Fire Marshal Anthony Dignoti
determined. (Courtesy Wethersfield Fire Marshal's Office)
But most interesting to Dignoti was a white USB cord, Part
of the cord was hanging off the chair and still intact, but
the other side was stuck to the seat and had melted into a
bare wire, he said in his report and an interview with CNN.
Dignoti ultimately concluded that the fire originated with
the cord Parra was using to charge his cellphone. His report
stated the cord experienced a short circuit, and while it was
unclear why this happened, ``the heat produced by the cord
ignited the upholstery for the office chair.''
The cord had been branded with the name of the world's
largest online retailer: Amazon. It was sold by one of
Amazon's popular private label lines, AmazonBasics, which
offers budget-friendly products including consumer
electronics, household appliances, home goods and office
accessories.
Launched in 2009, AmazonBasics has grown to offer more than
5,000 products, according to the retailer. Its mission:
identifying everyday items that Amazon can create at a
similar or higher quality and lower price point when compared
to existing name brands--a strategy also employed by
companies such as Costco and Target.
Key findings
Using keywords including ``fire,'' ``dangerous'' and
``burn,'' reporters identified more than 1,500 reviews about
AmazonBasics electronics and appliances posted by US
customers on Amazon.com from 2016 through early 2020 that
described safety-related issues.
More than 10 percent of the reviews identified by CNN
reported that products had caught fire--in some cases
describing how flames shot out of the devices.
Nearly 200 included reports of damage to homes or
belongings, including charred walls and fried cellphones.
A growing number of AmazonBasics products, which the
company promotes heavily on its site, have become bestsellers
since the line's inception, and many have ratings above four
stars, according to Marketplace Pulse research. In recent
months, the online retailer's sales have been soaring as
millions of Americans have been staying at home--and in many
cases working remotely--during the ongoing pandemic.
But consumers have raised serious safety concerns about
AmazonBasics items in complaints to government regulators and
in reviews posted on Amazon's own website. Since 2016, at
least 1,500 reviews, covering more than 70 items, have
described products exploding, catching on fire, smoking,
melting, causing electrical malfunctions or otherwise posing
risks, according to an analysis of AmazonBasics electronics
and appliances listed on its website.
The reviews identified represent a small fraction of the
overall purchases of the products, and fires caused by
consumer electronics are not unique to Amazon branded items.
User error can also be a factor, as can faulty or aging
wiring within a home or a defective device being used in
conjunction with the product.
But when well-made and used properly by consumers,
electronics like those sold under the AmazonBasics name
should rarely pose dangers, said electrical engineers
interviewed by CNN.
Dozens of AmazonBasics product are flagged as dangerous,
but many are still being sold. Within the more than 1,500
reviews, many consumers explicitly called out items as
potentially dangerous--using terms such as ``hazard'' or
``fire'' or saying the product should be recalled. Around 30
items with three or more reviews like this remain for sale on
Amazon.com today. At least 11 other products that fit this
criteria were no longer for sale at the time of publication.
Some became unavailable after CNN began its reporting, and at
least four product pages were removed from the retailer's
site entirely--leaving behind dead URLs known by employees as
``dog pages.'' Amazon confirmed that at least eight of these
products had been under investigation, but said the company
determined they all met its safety standards.
Customers have written in their reviews and said in
interviews that they trusted that AmazonBasics purchases
would be safe and well made since they were branded with
Amazon's name and frequently touted as ``Amazon's Choice.''
But even as complaints have mounted, the company has provided
little or no information to consumers or the public about how
it is handling allegations that some of its merchandise is
unsafe.
This review was written about an AmazonBasics car charger
that has multiple consumer safety complaints.
Amazon shoppers have recounted frightening malfunctions and
close calls in vivid detail: A surge protector turned into a
``blowtorch,'' one father recalled--saying that flames shot
out of the device, which was near his baby's nursery. Phone
chargers were said to have burned peoples' hands and legs,
and exploding batteries allegedly sprayed chemicals in
someone's face. A USB cord burst into flames in a parked car
while a toddler was inside, according to one parent. A
charger in another car was reported as starting an electrical
fire on the freeway, allegedly burning the driver and a
jacket. Paper shredders turned on by themselves, according to
multiple consumers, and one reportedly blew up in a
``fireball,'' burning someone's arm and singeing the hair
off. And a microwave suddenly caught on fire when an 8-year-
old went to heat up her macaroni and cheese cup as she had
done ``a zillion times,'' a mother claimed, saying she had to
take the appliance outside and spray it with a hose. Each of
these purchases were ``verified,'' meaning Amazon confirmed
that the customer who wrote the review actually purchased the
product on the site and didn't receive a ``deep discount,''
according to its website. Several were accompanied by photos
of the burned items.
More than 150 reviews about the AmazonBasics microwave
describe safety concerns including flames and smoke.
While the best way to determine why something malfunctioned
is to physically test it and take it apart, many customers
said they immediately threw out the defective devices or sent
them back to Amazon at the company's request.
CNN obtained two damaged AmazonBasics products from
customers: a microwave that a customer said caught fire and a
USB cord a user said overheated and melted. These were tested
by researchers at the failure analysis lab at the University
of Maryland's Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering
(CALCE) at CNN's request.
The USB cord was too burned for researchers to determine
what had gone wrong. The microwave testing found that the
design of the panel covering the heating device inside the
microwave could result in the machine catching on fire, and
determined that the way the panel was secured could allow
debris such as food or grease to collect behind it and
possibly ignite. As soon as the researchers turned it on, the
microwave began sparking and smoking, causing it to react as
if its user put foil or other metal inside. The testing was
cut short when the lab was closed due to Covid-19.
``There's a risk in using this machine for sure, and it's a
safety risk because this clearly heated up to the extent a
fire could occur,'' said engineering professor Michael Pecht,
who is the founder of CALCE and has previously assisted in
government safety investigations. ``This is more than a
reliability problem, this is a potential safety problem.''
Amazon did not comment on whether any improvements had been
made to the microwave, but said it is confident the microwave
is safe to use and that it continues to ``meet or exceed''
all of the applicable certification requirements.
The retailer said ``safety is a top priority'' at the
company and that it takes a number of steps to ensure all
AmazonBasics products are safe and high quality, such as
selecting experienced manufacturers, monitoring customer
feedback and testing items to ensure they pass safety and
compliance standards both before and after they are
available. It also said AmazonBasics offers thousands of
products which combined have more than 1 million reviews, and
that concerns are thoroughly investigated and that the
company acts accordingly.
``Not safe,'' one verified purchaser wrote in a review
about an AmazonBasics microwave, including a home video that
shows the device sparking and making loud popping noises.
``The outcome of the investigation varies on a case by case
basis and may include removing the product from the store,
adjusting the design of the product, notifying customers to
stop using the product, or other appropriate action,'' a
company spokesperson said in a statement. ``We want customers
to shop with confidence and if ever a customer has a concern,
they can contact customer service and we will investigate.''
Amazon said there are a number of reasons an item may no
longer be available, but that customers will be notified if a
critical safety issue is identified. When asked how
frequently the company has done this, Amazon said it had
notified customers about an AmazonBasics product less than
five times. It did not specify whether it did this for any of
the items reviewed by CNN.
`It's a red flag'
Amazon has already been under intense scrutiny for allowing
third party sellers with allegedly dangerous offerings to do
business on the site, and multiple court rulings have found
that the retailer can be held liable for defective items sold
in its third party marketplace. CNN's analysis focused on
products sold with Amazon's own name on them--a growing part
of the retailer's business.
The reviews come from people living all over the United
States and span five years, but they often call attention to
the very
[[Page H4986]]
same problems: The same panel within a microwave catching
fire, USB cords melting or burning despite no visible wear
and tear or overuse, and paint on outdoor patio heaters
lighting on fire. Consumers alleged items malfunctioned the
first time they plugged them in. Others said electronics were
not in use when they began malfunctioning.
In general, one or two reports of problems could be more
easily chalked up to user error or other external factors,
multiple electrical engineers said. But as the number of
reports about the same kinds of failures increases about the
same item, so does the likelihood that there is a defect in
the design or manufacturing.
Researchers at the CALCE lab compare a new AmazonBasics
microwave to one that had visible burn damage.
``That would certainly lead to more suspicion that the
product is at fault,'' said Mark Horenstein, a professor at
Boston University's College of Engineering. ``It's a red
flag.'' Amazon said customer reviews are only one indication
of a potential issue, saying it looks at a number of other
factors such as sales history, returns and customer service
contacts when assessing potential problems. ``Using customer
reviews alone to conclude a product is unsafe or imply
there's a widespread issue is misleading,'' the company said
in a statement. Former Amazon employees said that even a few
reviews mentioning words like ``fire'' and ``hazard'' should
automatically prompt the retailer to take action. Amazon said
reviews are monitored and can trigger safety investigations,
but it declined to provide details about the specific
threshold needed for this to happen. The company said
products may be temporarily removed during such inquiries and
that in order to keep selling something, it must be
confirmed to be safe. It also said that if an
investigation uncovers a ``potential, non-isolated safety
issue,'' it takes appropriate measures to notify the
government and ``safely recall the product.'' This
AmazonBasics surge protector remains for sale despite
reviews about dangers and a report to the CPSC that it
``made a loud popping noise, sparked, and the case was
opened by the force of the damage.'' Amazon said the
product is safe and that most reports involved customers
who plugged in multiple large electronics. Some reviews
identified by CNN said nothing was plugged into the
device, however.
Businesses are required by law to immediately report
``potentially hazardous'' items to the federal Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) so the agency can determine
whether an official recall is necessary. Companies can also
initiate voluntary recalls in cooperation with the CPSC.
Concerns similar to those detailed in Amazon reviews have
been relayed to the CPSC in at least 10 reports that
specifically mention an AmazonBasics product. The complaints
cover at least eight different items and date back to 2012.
In the United States, Amazon publicly recalled two
AmazonBasics items in 2018 and 2019, after the company
received 53 reports in the US about power banks overheating
and 25 about versions of a space heater overheating, burning
or sparking. It said it proactively notified the CPSC of the
results of the company's own investigation and its intent to
recall the items. Beyond these two official recalls, the
company has never publicly acknowledged that AmazonBasics
products have any safety issues.
The CPSC said it was prohibited by law from discussing any
item that had not been recalled and that in general, the
agency determines if a recall is necessary based on a number
of factors, including ``the nature of the defect, the level
of hazard associated with the issue, and the pattern of
similar problems (seen).''
Customers reported being shocked or burned in at least 100
reviews on Amazon's website. Parra from the Connecticut
apartment fire said in a lawsuit that he suffered second-
degree burns and injuries to his throat from smoke
inhalation. Dignoti's report shows Parra spent around a day
in the hospital. Parra sued Amazon in 2019, and the case
settled. He and his attorney did not respond to interview
requests.
CNN used the information provided by the fire department to
determine that the type of cord Parra purchased had been
removed from Amazon's website. While it is unclear when the
cord was pulled, a version of the page captured by the
Wayback Machine, an internet archive, shows the product had
an average rating of 4.1 out of 5 stars. It shows the cord
was still available for purchase until at least June 2017,
and that there were warnings from other customers at least a
year before Parra's January 2017 fire.
The link for the phone cord used by Parra now leads to
nothing but a dead URL known internally at Amazon as a dog
page.
``End of the cable melted and started smoking. Glad we
caught it before a fire,'' one verified purchaser wrote in
June 2016.
``DO NOT BUY! FIRE HAZARD!'' another customer with a
verified purchase of the cord wrote in May 2016, attaching 10
photos of the melted and warped cord--saying it ruined an
expensive iPhone and that he considered himself lucky that a
fire hadn't ignited. ``These should be taken off the market
immediately!!!''
While fires caused by USB cords are uncommon, they are
possible, according to electrical engineers who said a range
of factors could be at play in situations like this--from
problems with whatever device the cord is plugged into to
defects within the cord itself.
The AmazonBasics lightning charger that this review was
written about became unavailable after CNN began its
reporting.
An industry non-profit, the USB Implementers Forum Inc,
said it docs not believe user error is a significant cause of
overheating USB cables. A cable that is substandard, whether
because of a design or manufacturing defect, can be dangerous
and lead to electric shock, overheating, sparks or fire, it
said. The group has certified a number of AmazonBasics cables
as meeting their standards, though it focuses on the
functionality of the cables and making sure their
specifications are in compliance--emphasizing that it is
``not a replacement for industry best practices or any
applicable local, state or government statutes, rules or
regulations pertaining to safety.''
The group also said it conducted an internal review of
several cables CNN brought to its attention and found them to
be compliant. It does not certify proprietary lightning USB
cords used for Apple devices, however, such as Parra's cord.
Apple said it allows manufacturers to use its lightning
connectors in their products if those items are tested and
confirmed to meet high quality standards, and that the
company expects manufacturers to meet any applicable safety
standards.
Have you purchased an AmazonBasics product?
Amazon meanwhile said it investigated the safety claims
about the kind of cord used by Parra and determined it met
the company's standards. ``If we determine that a product is
unsafe, we remove it from our stores and take all necessary
actions, which may include contacting regulators and
customers,'' it said, specifically in response to questions
about the cord used by Parra, which was removed from the
site.
The retailer did introduce a new version of the product,
however, saying it made updates to improve the customer
experience.
Losing trust
Matt Citro purchased his AmazonBasics surge protector to
protect his family from a fire. Instead, he said that in
January 2018, the surge protector itself caught fire. A
single phone charger was plugged into the device, but was not
being used at the time.
Sitting on the couch as his 9-month-old son slept in his
nursery nearby, Citro said he noticed flames coming out of
the surge protector--turning it into what resembled a
``blowtorch.'' He told CNN that he quickly pulled the flaming
device from the wall. He wasn't injured but said he was left
with more than $1,000 of damage after the surge protector
burned a hole in the wall outlet and seared part of his wall.
Matt Citro says that he sent back his charred surge
protector so that it could be investigated by Amazon. He
never heard anything back, but did receive a payment to cover
damage to his home. (Courtesy Matt Citro)
He had never experienced any electrical issues in his home
before this, he said, and was convinced the AmazonBasics
surge protector was to blame.
``DO NOT BUY THIS PRODUCT!!! . . . If I wasn't home my
entire house would have burnt down from this cheap product,''
Citro wrote in a review. ``I'm extremely disappointed in
Amazon. We put a lot of faith in their products and to have
(one) almost burn down my home does not make me trust them.
This product has amazons name on it!''
Citro said he immediately contacted Amazon and told the
company what happened. At first, he said he was offered a
replacement or a refund. Not satisfied, he continued to call
customer service.
He said he finally got through to someone who connected him
with an insurance company, and he was ultimately paid $1,469,
according to a settlement document reviewed by CNN in which
Amazon denies any liability.
Amazon continued to sell the surge protector for nearly two
years after Citro posted his review, during which time more
reviews about similar situations and other concerns piled up.
More than 40 customers reported that the product was a fire
hazard, had caused damage to their home or belongings or
described other dangers.
These reviews represented around 1.7% of the roughly 2,600
US reviews posted about the $10.99 device as of late last
year, before Amazon removed it from the site. Several
included claims of flames and fires like Citro's. As a
comparison, a similar product made by a major consumer
electronics company and also sold on Amazon's site had six
reviews about possible safety concerns earlier this year,
representing .07% of its more than 8,000 reviews. And none of
the six mentioned actual fires. Amazon said its own analysis,
which added global reviews about the AmazonBasics surge
protector, found 1.1 % involved claims of overheating, fire
and other dangers.
One former AmazonBasics product manager, who asked to
remain anonymous because she still works in the industry,
said she was surprised to hear that such a high percentage of
reviews raised safety issues about an AmazonBasics item.
``Once you get 40, oh my gosh, no, that would not be
acceptable in any shape, way or form,'' she said of the
reviews found by CNN, adding that a ratio of around .05%
would have been seen as more acceptable when she worked
there. But she defended her former employer, saying this was
just one product and that during her
[[Page H4987]]
time with the company, she believed the retailer was even
more vigilant than competitors in trying to react to safety
concerns.
More than 40 customers reported dangers involving the same
surge protector that Citro said burst into flames.
Weeks after CNN began reporting on the surge protector--
reaching out to customers and employees and ordering the same
item as part of the investigation--Amazon pulled it from its
site in December despite its high average rating of 4.4 stars
as of a month earlier. The company did not appear to provide
any notification to customers, including to the reporters who
purchased it. And it did not post any message on its site
about why it was taken down.
Amazon declined to comment on individual customers, and
would not say why the page was removed or whether Citro's
surge protector was tested. It did say an updated version of
the product had been released, but when asked for the link to
the updated version, the company said ``this product is
currently unavailable.''
Citro, who said he still shops at Amazon frequently, said
he sent his burned surge protector back for testing as the
company requested, but never heard anything about what its
investigation found.
``I do wish this particular product was tested more
thoroughly,'' he said. ``A lot was on the line with my son's
bedroom in the next room.''
Just like Parra's phone cord, this specific kind of surge
protector has not been officially recalled.
Behind the scenes
Three former Amazon employees said the vast majority of
AmazonBasics electronics are made in Asia. The company's list
of suppliers used for its various private label lines--
including AmazonBasics--shows that only around 10% are in the
United States and nearly half are located in China.
The retailer typically brings AmazonBasics items to market
in two ways, explained the former product manager. It either
goes straight to manufacturers that are able to meet its
standards and works closely with them to create items for the
AmazonBasics line. Or Amazon finds an existing product and
works with a third-party company, which may use an outside
manufacturer of its own, to brand the item with the
AmazonBasics name.
The reviews
More than 90% of the reviews CNN analyzed were about
``verified purchases.''
Some 400 reviews posted on the site included photos or
videos as visual evidence of their claims.
Reviews came from around 70 product pages, which sometimes
included multiple variations of an item (such as USB cords in
different lengths or colors), which may have separate
identification numbers.
Reviews were excluded if a product had clearly been used
incorrectly--for example, those saying non-rechargeable
batteries were placed in a charger.
Most reviews did not include people's full names, but CNN
did reach more than 30 customers, and many provided
information such as evidence of their purchases, photos,
additional details and correspondence with Amazon.
She said both methods have been implemented for
electronics, but that in this second scenario, Amazon
typically has less insight into the manufacturing process and
is less involved in quality and safety testing. Amazon
disputed this, saying it verifies that products meet the same
safety standards regardless of the business model. The
company also said it most frequently works directly with
manufacturers.
Related: Fake and dangerous kids products are turning up for sale on
Amazon
Another former employee who was involved with AmazonBasics
in its earlier years and asked to remain anonymous because of
a confidentiality agreement, said employees on the
AmazonBasics team would randomly order items to inspect and
stay on top of reviews to make sure red flags were being
caught. ``We didn't have a lot of problems in my time but
were much smaller than they are now so it was easy to keep
things under control,'' the former employee said.
Former Amazon manager Rachel Greer, who left the company in
2015, said that when she worked in compliance at the company,
she believed AmazonBasics products were closely monitored
from conception to the years following their launch, saying
there was extensive testing done. She said safety issues were
rare, but when they occurred, they were caught quickly and
addressed as soon as possible. ``If someone complained on a
review, we took it very seriously,'' she said.
This required staying on top of manufacturers and making
sure corners weren't cut, she and the AmazonBasics product
manager both said. In the case of USB cords, for example,
Greer described how she made sure there was frequent testing
of the cords to ensure that manufacturers hadn't begun to
swap in thinner wiring which could be more likely to cause
cords to overheat.
A customer said this AmazonBasics retractable USB cord
began melting only a few months after he purchased it. ``Had
my wife not heard it crackling it could have started a
fire,'' he wrote in a review.
``When you're in charge of compliance for something that
has the Amazon brand on it, I didn't think it should be
something we're messing around with,'' Greer said. ``When
you're outsourcing production there's a lot of things that
can go wrong.''
When she left Amazon, she said she was growing concerned
that a drive to increase sales would overshadow a focus on
safety as the number of AmazonBasics offerings continued to
rise. Prior to her departure, she would increasingly disagree
with product managers, who she said pushed to get items into
the pipeline faster and more cheaply. Performance evaluations
reviewed by reporters backed up the idea that Greer had
clashed with colleagues but also described her as ``an
evangelist for product safety,'' saying ``she is passionate
about keeping customers safe.''
Greer now works as a consultant to third-party sellers, and
said she wasn't surprised to hear that customers were
complaining of alleged dangers. She said that when she worked
for Amazon, she was never aware of anything close to the
number or level of seriousness of the reviews identified by
CNN, and questioned whether testing was still as rigorous as
it had been in the past.
``If this had happened on a seller product, the second
complaint of fire it would have been taken down,'' she said,
while scanning through some of the more than 150 reviews
about serious problems with a voice-activated AmazonBasics
microwave--the same product tested by CALCE.
Greer said that if she was still at the company and had
seen so many reports of fire about a single item, she likely
would have reported the microwave to the CPSC and worked with
the business teams to enact a voluntary recall by the
company.
Since the microwave's release in the fall of 2018, its
product page has been flooded with reports from consumers
about problems including flames, smoke and sparks. These
kinds of reviews made up roughly 5% of the AmazonBasics
microwave's more than 3,000 reviews as of February, when
CNN's final analysis was conducted. Another roughly 1,000
reviews have been posted since then, with fires being
reported as recently as September. A microwave that has been
reviewed less frequently but is the same size and wattage had
only 10 reviews describing similar safety issues--amounting
to around .7% of its roughly 1,350 reviews on Amazon.
Research scientists use x-ray CT scanning to test
AmazonBasics retractable charging cords and microwave parts.
While the retailer did not provide unit sales, Amazon said
that as the best-selling microwave on the site, it may have a
higher number of sales and reviews, which could result in
more mentioning possible concerns.
The company disputed Greer's comments, saying safety
testing had not become any less rigorous and that it was not
aware of any manufacturers using thinner cables ``than they
were directed to use.'' It said safety testing is handled by
reputable third-party labs with global facilities, including
in China and that her statements about the microwave were
speculative since she was not part of the team that worked on
this item and was not involved in the testing of the device.
Amazon also said it proactively sends safety-related customer
reports to the CPSC and noted the agency has not issued any
consumer warnings about the AmazonBasics microwave.
Still for sale
Amazon declined to provide details about why certain
products were investigated and removed from its site, while
others with repeated complaints about the same hazards are
still available to purchase today.
Leeona Smail said her AmazonBasics battery charger began to
melt and smoke.
New mom Leeona Smail posted her review about an
AmazonBasics battery charger late last year. When CNN reached
her, she recounted how she and her husband were forced to
evacuate their home in the middle of the night when they
detected the unmistakable smell of something burning. They
gathered their dogs, cats and 4-month-old baby by their front
porch, called 911 and waited for help to arrive.
It wasn't until after the firefighters left that the Smails
said they found what they believed was the culprit: an
AmazonBasics battery charger. They had used the device for
several years to charge batteries. But this time, Smail said,
after unplugging it from the wall and placing it in a box on
their coffee table, it began to melt and smoke. When the fire
chief returned the next day to check on them, she said, he
was amazed to see the source of the smell.
A Vandergrift, Pennsylvania fire chief confirmed that his
team was dispatched to investigate ``a smoke odor and light
haze'' at the Smail home. He said they ultimately learned
that a battery charger ``overheated and melted,'' and said it
was unclear whether it would have caused the house to catch
fire if it hadn't been found.
Other reviews about the same battery charger have described
similar concerns. It is still available for sale.
Smail posted a photo of the burned device along with her
review before throwing it away. Amazon eventually gave her a
refund--though she said she only received a partial one
because the warranty window had passed.
Credits
At least 21 other reviews about the same battery charger,
which had around 2,000 total reviews at the time of CNN's
analysis, also said the device had overheated, melted or
burned. Three described the same situation that Smail
reported: the charger had not even been plugged in and had no
batteries in it at the time.
[[Page H4988]]
The item was still for sale on Amazon at the time of
publication.
The company said an investigation confirmed the product was
safe, and that there were no broader design or safety
concerns. But when asked whether it tested any of the actual
chargers customers had flagged, and if so, what those tests
had found, Amazon said it did not have ``information to
share.''
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. In July, I introduced the INFORM Consumers Act with
Congresswoman Kathy Castor, which would require platforms such as
Amazon to verify third-party sellers. It is my sincere hope that this
body can move, first, on the legislation that we are addressing today
and, finally, on legislation that would protect consumers in a deeper
way.
I thank Representative Duncan, my friend and colleague, for
introducing this legislation with me, this important consumer safety
legislation. I would also like to take a moment to recognize both
majority and minority committee staff who worked hard on this and each
of the other bills that are before us today that moved through the
subcommittee that I have the privilege of chairing: Lisa Goldman, Anna
Yu, Daniel Greene, Chloe Rodriguez, Alex Hoehn-Saric, Tim Kurth, and
Bijan Koohmaraie.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the former
chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I appreciate his
leadership.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the leaders of the Energy and
Commerce Committee on both sides of the aisle for moving forward with
H.R. 8134, the Consumer Product Safety Inspection Enhancement Act.
I especially want to thank Chairwoman Schakowsky, who has worked so
hard on this, and Representative Jeff Duncan, who has also led on this
bill. This bill will improve coordination with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, the CBP, to target and prevent consumer products that
violate American laws from entering the United States. Importantly,
this effort prioritizes shipments from China, where we know the
overwhelming majority of counterfeit goods originate.
By prioritizing inspection of shipments from China, H.R. 8134 will
help the CPSC and the CBP identify trends and better position us to
prevent goods that violate our laws and, by the way, hurt our small
businesses from entering our country.
The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of addressing supply
chain threats. This bill is an important step in making that happen.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support this
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 8134, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________