Democratic Commissioners Rebuff Dreamland's Retraction Request

Democratic CPSC Commissioners August 21 cast two votes against a retraction request from Dreamland Baby and to send the firm an explanatory letter. Republican Commissioners abstained. The underlying issue is Dreamland's concerns (PSL, 5/13/24) with statements by Commissioner Richard Trumka in his effort to get retailers to stop selling weighted infant sleep products. The retraction request (bit.ly/3z0h4AD) came in July.

The reason for denying the request was that CPSA section 6(b)(7) describes retractions as merited when statements are false or misleading and reflect negatively on a company. However, according to the language the three commissioners approved (bit.ly/4dHR7oq):

"None of the statements that Dreamland challenges contain the name of Dreamland or any other manufacturer or private labeler. Therefore, the identity of the manufacturer or private labeler of a particular product cannot be "readily ascertained" within the meaning of the CPSA and Commission regulations, and the advance notice and comment requirements of CPSA section 6(b)(1) do not apply."

Additionally, the vote language disagreed Trumka's statements were inaccurate or misleading, asserting that he cited safe sleep advice from CPSC, CDC, and NIH.

It also disagreed that Trumka's letters to retailers were a "stop sale directive," explaining that only the commission or a court can issue one and that "Commissioner Trumka acted in his own capacity requesting voluntary actions that retailers could disagree with or ignore and did not mention specific brands or manufacturers."

The letter to Dreamland (bit.ly/3TeEGrT) also explains those matters, and it points out that the company is seeking retraction of general advice lifted from CPSC's safe sleep webpage. It further disagrees that linking or referring to information from other agencies requires CPSC to independently corroborate that information.

Republican Commissioners Douglas Dziak and Peter Feldman jointly explained (bit.ly/3ALhL1g) that their abstentions were due to their belief that there was insufficient process to establish the facts of the case. Instead, there was one letter from Dreamland and one response from CPSC with no opportunity for competing rebuttals.

They also worried about censorship, explaining:

"If the Commission found a commissioner violated Section 6(b), it could compel retractions on that commissioner’s letterhead and social media accounts. We do not take such relief lightly. Without a fully developed evidentiary record, we are concerned about the precedent such a finding could create. We have seen other independent agencies attempt censorship of the minority views of its commissioners and are aware of how these efforts contribute to concerns about the honesty and integrity of the senior leadership at those agencies."

They suggested that the best place for Dreamland to seek recourse would be in court.