It is gratifying to know that the folks at the CPSC do read my blog posts. How do I know this? My last post pointed to the statement, in a Fox News story about the Buckyballs lawsuit, of the agency spokesman denying that the agency “punished enemies”. Apparently today the story was changed so that the agency is now denying that it punishes companies, not enemies. Since this change was pointed out to me by the agency spokesman, I want readers also to be aware of this change.
In the minds of some this may be a distinction without a difference. Craig Zucker of course, would be one of those who does not see a difference and it is easy to see why. At the same time that small powerful magnetic desk toys are being sold legally across the country, the agency has demanded in a law suit that the magnetic product he distributed be recalled, and since his company is now out of business, that Zucker, one of the founders of the company, personally undertake this recall. While two manufacturers have volunteered to do recalls of small magnets, I understand that only a handful have actually been returned. In other words, the agency has put a company out of business and now has brought a lawsuit in order to accomplish a recall of a product that consumers apparently do not want to part with–a recall that the agency should know will not be effective.
I could go on about the questionable actions of the agency. The obvious prejudgment of both the law suit and the related rulemaking and the inappropriate extension of the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine are just two examples. But I have written about these issues before. For the purposes of this post, please rest easy knowing that the CPSC only punishes companies, not enemies.