CPSC Exercises Section 12 Imminent Hazard Authority for First Time in Nearly 40 Years, Warns Consumers to Stop Using Lakkzoom Immersion Water Heaters

WASHINGTON-The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), through the Department of Justice on behalf of the United States, today filed an imminent hazard action under Section 12 of the Consumer Product Safety Act against the manufacturer and seller of certain Lakkzoom immersion water heaters. The action seeks court-ordered relief to prevent additional injuries associated with the products, which can overheat and catch fire within minutes when energized either completely or partially out of water.

At the same time, CPSC is urging consumers to immediately stop using Lakkzoom immersion water heaters, which have been associated with numerous reports of fires.

The filing marks the Commission's first use of its Section 12 imminent hazard authority in nearly four decades.

"Congress enacted Section 12 to ensure that the Commission could seek swift judicial relief when products present an imminent hazard," said Acting Chairman Peter Feldman. "While the Commission has historically relied primarily on other enforcement authorities, Section 12 provides an important complementary tool when expedited action is warranted."

Consistent with the Administration's priority of protecting American families from dangerous foreign imports and holding overseas manufacturers accountable, CPSC established a Section 12 Task Force to identify appropriate cases and develop Section 12 into a meaningful component of the Commission's enforcement program.

"Under President Trump's leadership, CPSC is working more closely than ever with the Department of Justice and our other federal partners to ensure that every available enforcement tool is brought to bear against dangerous products," Feldman said.

For more information about the Enforcement & Affirmative Litigation Branch and its enforcement efforts visit www.justice.gov/civil/enforcement-affirmative-litigation-branch.

The claims made in the complaint are allegations that, if the case were to proceed to trial, the government would be required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence.