Today, the CPSC announced a civil penalty settlement agreement for an eye-popping $15.45 million. The settlement involved dehumidifiers sold by Gree Electrical Appliances Inc. The penalty is the statutory maximum that could be imposed and is well beyond any penalty imposed by the agency at any time in its history.
CPSC alleged that Gree:
- knowingly failed to report a defect and unreasonable risk of serious injury to CPSC with dehumidifiers sold under 13 different brand names (the dehumidifiers were recalled in 2013);
- knowingly made misrepresentations to CPSC staff during its investigation; and
- sold dehumidifiers bearing the UL safety certification mark knowing that the dehumidifiers did not meet UL flammability standards.
Given the size of the penalty, one should expect that the alleged misconduct to be off-the-charts in terms of the severity of injury to consumers. Yet, even though the earlier related recall involved well over 2 million items and significant property damage from fires caused by the defective product, there are no reports of injury. In fact, there is little to distinguish this hazard pattern from others involving defective appliances posing serious fire hazards where penalties have been fractions of the amount imposed in this case. Certainly there was potential for serious injury but the fact remains that there were no injuries. While there was substantial property damage, presumably this was covered by insurance and it is not the purpose of the CPSC to protect insurance companies.
There is nothing in the agency’s press release or the settlement agreement itself to tell us why this case was so more egregious than other cases involving violations of the requirement to report hazards to the agency. One has to assume then that it was the alleged misrepresentations to the government and the unauthorized use of the UL mark that bumped the penalty up to the limit. But other than these general statements and based on what has been made public, it is not clear what actual conduct triggered such a huge penalty. For those trying to stay on the right side of the law, the government has an obligation to be more transparent in describing the activity that warrants this type of penalty.
Certainly the allegations in the settlement agreement are very serious and, if true, warrant a significant penalty. But it would be helpful to know whether this penalty is unique to a particular set of circumstances or is just a very large scalp from another “failure-to-report” case. As Commissioner Mohorovic points out in his statement, if the agency wants to change behavior through its penalties, it is important to more fully describe the behavior those regulated should avoid.
While this is a significant case because of the size of the penalty, its importance diminishes because of the agency’s opaqueness in describing the bad acts that occurred. If you are not confused and troubled by all this, then I suggest you are not paying attention.