Home - Blank Rome LLP

Register to receive insights and analyses on breaking news and trends across varying industries.
<a class="link-primary mt-4" href="/subscribe">Subscribe</a>

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY

Wilmington, DE

Cincinnati, OH

Princeton, NJ

Los Angeles, CA

Houston, TX

Tampa, FL

Shanghai

South Florida

Pittsburgh, PA

Washington, D.C.

Chicago, IL

Orange County, CA

Dallas, TX

Boston, MA

On March 16, 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that Shimano, Inc., and Shimano North America Holding, Inc., agreed to pay an $11.5 million civil penalty for failing to immediately report defective bicycle cranksets that posed a crash hazard to consumers. Per the CPSC, Shimano received thousands of warranty claims between 2013 and 2022 about its 11-speed Bonded Hollowtech II bicycle cranksets separating during use, along with dozens of complaints from consumers around the world who sustained serious injuries in related bicycle falls, including bone fractures. During that period, Shimano made nine design and manufacturing changes to the cranksets, resulting in 25 modifications intended to make them less likely to come apart. Despite this, Shimano did not report the issue to the CPSC until it finally recalled 680,000 cranksets in September 2023.

core/paragraph

According to the CPSC, "despite possessing information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the bicycle cranksets contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, Shimano did not immediately report to the Commission."

The Shimano penalty is the latest in a series of significant enforcement actions by the CPSC. Recent settlements have included a $12.5 million civil penalty by smartwatch maker Fitbit, a $16 million civil penalty by furniture manufacturer Bestar, and a $91 million criminal resolution by appliance maker Gree, which also included executive prison sentences.

These actions should serve as a reminder to all manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers of consumer products that they have an obligation to immediately report potential product hazards to CPSC, and the consequences of delay can be severe.

Reporting Obligations Under Section 15(b) of the CPSA

core/heading

Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) requires manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers to notify CPSC immediately upon obtaining information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a consumer product either: fails to comply with an applicable consumer product safety rule or a voluntary consumer product safety standard upon which CPSC has relied; fails to comply with any other rule, regulation, standard or ban under the CPSA or any other act enforced by CPSC; contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard; or creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death.

The word "immediately" in the statute is interpreted by CPSC to mean within 24 hours of obtaining reportable information. If a company is uncertain whether the information is reportable, it may take a reasonable period to investigate, but that investigation should not exceed 10 business days unless the company can demonstrate that a longer period is reasonable under the circumstances. CPSC's consistent guidance is clear: When in doubt, report.

Critically, the reporting obligation arises even if a company cannot identify a specific defect or root cause. So long as the received information reasonably supports the conclusion that a product violates a consumer safety rule or could create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, the company must report. Reporting does not automatically mean CPSC will determine that the product creates a substantial product hazard or requires corrective action. Many Section 15 reports result in no corrective action after CPSC staff evaluates the report and concludes that the reported issue does not rise to the level of a substantial product hazard.

Over the past two years, CPSC has imposed a series of substantial civil penalties and, for the first time in the agency's history, pursued criminal sanctions against individual executives for failure to report product defects under Section 15(b) of the CPSA. Civil penalties may be assessed for each knowing violation of Section 15(b), with statutory caps of up to $120,000 per violation and $17.15 million for a related series of violations. A knowing violation includes not only actual knowledge but also presumed knowledge, meaning companies cannot escape liability by claiming ignorance of information they should have discovered through reasonable diligence.

The CPSC is not limiting its enforcement to manufacturers. Retailers, importers and distributors all bear independent reporting obligations and face equal exposure to civil and criminal penalties. Willful violations of the CPSA can result in imprisonment of up to five years and fines determined under the federal criminal code.

When a company receives information suggesting a potential product safety issue, it should take the following steps to conduct an analysis that runs parallel with and informs its reporting decision.

Step 1: Determine Whether a Defect Exists

A defect can arise from a manufacturing or production error; the design of the product; the materials used in the product; the product's contents, construction, finish or packaging; or inadequate warnings or instructions. In evaluating whether a defect exists, CPSC considers the following factors:

core/list-item

Nature of the risk of injury the product presents

Population exposed to the product and its risk of injury

Adequacy of warnings and instructions to mitigate the risk

Role of consumer misuse and the foreseeability of such misuse

Case law interpreting federal and state public health and safety statutes

Case law in the area of products liability

core/list

Importantly, a product can be defective even when it is designed, manufactured and marketed exactly as intended. Similarly, a product may be defective even if it complies with a voluntary or mandatory safety standard. As the CPSC Recall Handbook states, "a company in doubt about whether a defect exists should still report."

Step 2: Evaluate Whether the Defect Creates a Substantial Risk of Injury

If a company identifies a potential defect, it must further assess whether that defect creates a substantial risk of injury to the public. CPSC considers several factors in making this determination. One key indicator is a pattern of defect, meaning the defect stems from design, composition, construction, finish, packaging or warnings. The conditions under which the defect manifests can also be a factor. A single defective product can be the basis for a substantial product hazard determination if injury is likely or could be serious. The severity of risk is assessed by considering whether injuries that have occurred or could occur are serious or likely to occur, the number of injuries, the intended or reasonably foreseeable use or misuse of the product, and the population exposed to the product.

Step 3: Even Without a Defect, Assess Unreasonable Risk

If the information available to a company does not reasonably support the conclusion that a defect exists, the company must still report if it has information indicating that the product creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. In making this assessment, companies should consider: reports from experts; test reports; product liability lawsuits or claims; consumer or customer complaints; quality control data; scientific or epidemiological studies; reports of injury; and information from other companies or governmental entities. CPSC has stated that it will "attach considerable significance if a company learns that a court or jury has determined that one of its products has caused a serious injury or death and a reasonable person could conclude that the product creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death."

A serious injury for these purposes includes grievous bodily injury; injury necessitating hospitalization requiring actual medical or surgical treatment; fractures; lacerations requiring sutures; concussions; injuries to the eye, ear or internal organs requiring medical treatment; and injuries resulting in absence from school or work of more than one day.

The following measures can help companies ensure product safety and a continuous product improvement cycle, especially in the current enforcement environment:

Establish or strengthen comprehensive compliance programs that include systematic procedures for collecting and analyzing product safety information from all available sources, including consumer complaints, warranty returns, insurance claims, product liability or false advertising lawsuits, quality control data, engineering analyses, and test results. These are all good sources to detect a safety signal.

Designate a senior official or team with full authority to evaluate product safety information and report to CPSC. That individual or team should have knowledge of the CPSA and CPSC regulations and guidance, have direct accountability to the chief executive officer and work directly with any in-house legal department.

Adopt a posture that favors reporting. Delayed reporting or failure to report are among the most serious violations of the CPSA. Attempting to address product safety issues through internal design changes, new components or warnings without reporting to CPSC can expose a company to serious penalties. Again, a report to the CPSC does not constitute an admission of a defect or liability, and many reports result in no corrective action.

Do not assume that the manufacturer will report, especially if the manufacturer is outside of the United States. Section 15(b) imposes independent reporting obligations on every entity in the distribution chain, and CPSC will hold retailers and importers accountable.

Maintain detailed records of all product safety-related information, including complaints, warranty claims, root cause analysis and corrective action plans for the expected life of the product. These records are critical for product improvement, development cycles and demonstrating compliance in the event of a CPSC investigation.

The message from CPSC could not be clearer: The agency expects immediate reporting when companies at any point in the manufacturing or distribution chain have information suggesting a potential product hazard, and it will use the full range of its civil and criminal enforcement authority against those who delay.

“The Importance of Timely Product Safety Reporting,” by Terry Henry, Lauren O’Donnell, and Serena Gopal, was published in <a href="https://www.rmmagazine.com/articles/article/2026/05/28/the-importance-of-timely-product-safety-reporting">Risk Management Magazine</a> on May 28, 2026.

The Importance of Timely Product Safety Reporting

Offices

Stay Connected

Slide Menu

Slide Search

The Importance of Timely Product Safety Reporting

Offices

Stay Connected