Product Liability

The Baby Safety Alliance (f/k/a JPMA) recently held its annual summit in Washington DC, where Shareholders Brandon Cox and Bardia Sergent attended and gained valuable insights into the latest issues in the juvenile product industry. Below are their key takeaways from the summit:

1. Injury and Fatality Rates Have Plateaued Despite Decades of Progress

Despite significant advances in child safety over the past several decades, injury and fatality rates associated with many of the most common hazards facing children have largely plateaued. According to Dr. Ben Hoffman (former President of the American Academy of Pediatrics), nearly 40% of all child deaths in the U.S. are attributable to “unintentional injuries”—a figure that significantly exceeds deaths caused by diseases like cancer. These injuries continue to stem from well-known hazards, including motor vehicle accidents, drowning, and unsafe sleep environments. Initiatives such as the back-to-sleep campaign, widespread adoption of child restraint systems, and enhanced product safety standards have made meaningful contributions in reducing injuries and fatalities. However, those gains appear to have leveled off in recent years. This plateau reflects a difficult reality: education alone has limits. Caregivers often make decisions under conditions of fatigue, stress, distraction, and incomplete information. Additionally, socioeconomic and structural disparities continue to affect how safety information is received and implemented across different populations.

This discussion reinforces a trend that product manufacturers and retailers have seen developing for years: increasing expectations that products themselves serve as a layer of injury prevention. As traditional educational interventions produce diminished returns, regulators, consumer advocates, and plaintiffs’ attorneys are increasingly focused on whether products can be designed to better anticipate foreseeable misuse, reduce reliance on caregiver judgment, and mitigate risks arising from human error.

For companies in the juvenile product space, the takeaway is not merely that safety remains important, but that innovation in safety design may increasingly become an expectation.

2. Warning Labels May Be Compliant, But Are They Effective?

The current ANSI Z535.4 standard governing product warning labels was first published in 1992, at a time when color-coded warnings and highly visual safety messaging were far less common. Since then, consumers have become inundated with visual stimuli and warnings in virtually every aspect of daily life. This prompts the question of whether traditional warning formats continue to capture attention and influence behavior. Dr. Carol Pollack-Nelson discussed research suggesting that consumers frequently disregard warning labels due to factors such as habitation, information overload, and low perceptions of risk. These challenges may be particularly pronounced in the juvenile product industry, where many caregivers view products as inherently safe and intuitive to use. As a result, even carefully crafted warnings may fail to achieve meaningful behavioral change. Several potential approaches to improving warning effectiveness were discussed, including: (1) reducing lengthy text; (2) using larger font size; (3) incorporating QR codes or other digital sources; (4) limiting repetitive messaging; (5) using targeted pictograms; and (6) framing warnings in a more action-oriented and positive manner. These suggestions, however, remain largely unvalidated and require additional study.

Historically, manufacturers have focused on ensuring that warnings satisfy applicable regulations and standards. While compliance remains essential, regulators, safety advocates, and plaintiffs’ attorneys are increasingly asking a different question: Did the warning actually influence consumer behavior? This has several implications in product liability litigation. Plaintiffs routinely argue that warnings were ineffective because they were too lengthy, too technical, visually cluttered, or failed to adequately communicate a risk. At the same time, manufacturers face the opposite challenge—deviating from established standards can create its own litigation risks if alternative warning formats are later criticized.

The takeaway is that companies should be cautious about making substantial changes to warning content or presentation absent supporting research, testing, or regulatory guidance. Practically speaking, manufacturers should continue prioritizing compliance with existing warning requirements while also evaluating whether warning strategies can be improved through consumer or user testing, human factors analyses, and emerging communication tools. Warning effectiveness will continue to receive greater scrutiny and companies that demonstrate a thoughtful, evidence-based approach to risk communication may be better positioned both from a safety perspective and in defending future product liability claims.

3. The CPSC Continues to Prioritize Aggressive Enforcement

A key message from CPSC Acting Chairman Peter Feldman was that the agency remains firmly committed to a heightened enforcement posture. He described the agency’s recent “mission reset” as a shift away from measuring success by activity alone and toward measuring success through outcomes. Namely, preventing injuries, removing unsafe products from marketplace, and increasing accountability throughout the supply chain. To support this effort, the Acting Chairman highlighted a number of recent enforcement initiatives, including increased recalls and safety warnings, expanded port inspections, a significant rise in online marketplace takedown activity, and enhanced scrutiny of imported products. Preventing unsafe products from reaching consumers is a higher priority than ever before.

The focus of the CPSC’s concern is unsafe products entering the U.S. through complex global supply chains, as well as combating fraudulent testing and certification practices. There has been investment in AI by the Commission to identify potentially hazardous products earlier and target enforcement resources more effectively.

While much of the messaging focused on unsafe imports and non-compliant foreign sellers, domestic manufacturers and retailers should not assume they are insulated from the uptick of enforcement activities. As the Commission increases inspections, improves data analysis capabilities, and expands monitoring of online marketplaces, the likelihood that compliance deficiencies will be identified has increased substantially. For manufacturers, this means ensuring that testing, certification, documentation, and quality-control processes are not only compliant, but also readily defensible if challenged. For retailers, it reinforces the importance of supplier vetting, product sourcing and controls, and procedures for responding quickly to safety concerns and recall activity. Supply chain integrity is of the utmost importance at this time. Perhaps most importantly, the Commission’s emphasis on technology and proactive enforcement indicates that companies should not view compliance as a reactive exercise. Organizations that can demonstrate strong testing protocols, reliable supplier oversight, and a culture of compliance will be better positioned to navigate this environment of heightened enforcement that is certain to continue.

4. Navigating the Growing Patchwork of State Chemical and PFAS Restrictions

State legislatures continue to expand restrictions on chemical and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products, with children’s and juvenile products becoming an area of focus. Beginning January 1, 2026, new PFAS restrictions, chemical prohibitions, and reporting requirements took effect in several states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, Vermont, and Washington. Collectively, these laws impose increasingly complex compliance obligations on manufacturers, importers, and retailers selling products nationwide.

A central issue discussed at the Summit was the meaning of “intentionally added” chemicals and PFAS—a term that serves as the foundation for many state restrictions but is not defined uniformly across jurisdictions. Some states, including Vermont and Rhode Island, have adopted expansive definitions that extend beyond chemicals deliberately incorporated into a product’s formulation. These definitions may encompass PFAS degradation byproducts, the use of PFAS or PFAS precursors as processing or manufacturing aids, mold release agents, and even PFAS generated as a by-product of chemical reactions during manufacturing. Other states have adopted narrower definitions that focus on chemicals intentionally incorporated into a product to serve a functional or technical purpose. As a result, products that may be compliant in one jurisdiction could trigger reporting obligations or sales prohibitions in another.

The continued proliferation of state chemical and PFAS regulations presents one of the most significant compliance challenges facing the consumer products industry. Unlike federal product safety regulations, which generally establish a single national standard, state chemical regulations are evolving through a patchwork of differing definitions, reporting requirements, effective dates, and product-specific prohibitions. For manufacturers, this means that compliance increasingly requires a detailed understanding of supply chains, raw material sourcing, manufacturing processes, and chemical disclosures from suppliers. Companies may need to evaluate not only whether PFAS or other regulated chemicals are intentionally incorporated into a product, but also whether they are introduced indirectly through processing aids, manufacturing equipment, packaging, or chemical degradation. For retailers, these developments underscore the growing importance of supplier oversight and contractual compliance mechanisms. Retailers selling products nationally face increasing risk that products lawful in one state may be restricted or prohibited in another.

The broader trend is clear: states are continuing to fill perceived regulatory gaps in chemical safety through increasingly aggressive legislation. Companies should monitor the rapidly evolving state law landscape, especially developments in the most restrictive jurisdictions, and proactively assess their product portfolios against emerging requirements.