Amazon is in sizzling water once more over the hundreds of faulty and probably hazardous merchandise offered on its website. Today, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) filed a complaint towards the corporate in a bid to power the retailer to recall such objects.

Specifically, the patron security regulator pointed to 24,000 defective carbon monoxide detectors, flammable youngsters’s pajamas, and 40,000 hairdryers offered with out protections towards shock and electrocution. The CPSC stated in a statement that since these merchandise pose a danger of great harm or demise, Amazon is legally accountable to recall them. The grievance, which was authorized in a 3-1 vote, calls on the retailer to cease promoting these merchandise, work with the CPSC to enact a recall and immediately notify clients, and supply a full refund.

To be clear, Amazon says it’s finished that already. “As the CPSC’s own complaint acknowledges, for the vast majority of the products in question, Amazon already immediately removed the products from our store, notified customers about potential safety concerns, advised customers to destroy the products and provided customers with full refunds,” an Amazon spokesperson advised Gizmodo in an electronic mail. “For the remaining few products in question, the CPSC did not provide Amazon with enough information for us to take action and despite our requests, CPSC has remained unresponsive.”

Amazon went on to say it had supplied to “expand [its] capabilities to handle recalls for all products sold in our store, regardless of whether those products were sold or fulfilled by Amazon or third-party sellers” and wasn’t positive why the CPSC rejected that supply. For its half, the CPSC stated in a press launch that whereas Amazon had “taken certain action”, these actions have been inadequate.

This isn’t a brand new drawback. The CPSC’s grievance notes that customers who purchase merchandise on Amazon could “reasonably believe they are purchasing products from Amazon” however that it “only explicitly identifies the role of third parties” in paragraph 16 of its Conditions of Use. The Wall Street Journal in 2019 performed a lengthy investigation that discovered greater than 4,000 objects offered on the platform have been declared unsafe or banned by federal companies, or deceptively labeled. Meanwhile, Wirecutter wrote in 2020 that the third-party vendor system has successfully given rise to bogus counterfeits in nearly each class. In many instances, shoppers find yourself shopping for expired or counterfeit merchandise as they’re unaware it’s not being offered by an official store. Last September, CNN additionally found that dozens of Amazon Basics merchandise had been reported as bursting into flames, solely to nonetheless be offered on the location. Gizmodo has additionally discovered Amazon to be a minefield of scammy 5G merchandise.

Legally, Amazon shouldn’t be answerable for fraudulent objects offered by third-party sellers because it doesn’t technically promote the product—it simply hosts the itemizing and is subsequently protected by Section 230 so long as it’s moderately conscious of takedown requests. However, the corporate stated it seized and destroyed greater than 2 million counterfeit merchandise and blocked greater than 10 million dangerous listings in 2020. Amazon additionally advised Gizmodo that it’s supplied the CPSC month-to-month studies in its Recall pledge, however that the company had declined. It additionally contends that its messaging to clients used a template the company that the CPSC had authorized.

CPSC Chairman Robert Adler additionally launched a statement to accompany the grievance. In it, Adler says that whereas he voted to approve the grievance, he “did so with great reluctance.” Adler additional elaborated that the present CPSC mannequin for product remembers is unsustainable, as “for every product which the CPSC determines a recall is necessary, a lengthy negotiation must first take place” of whether or not a platform is topic to its legal guidelines. “To continue product-by-product is like using an eyedropper to empty the ocean—ineffective, inefficient, and frustratingly insufficient to protect consumers,” Adler writes. “The best solution to this problem would be for the CPSC and third-party platforms to work together to craft agreements that establish a framework for dealing with those products.”

Amazon says it agrees with Adler, however till one thing is definitely hammered out, it pays to all the time verify who’s really promoting a product and keep away from shopping for sure merchandise (i.e., meals, cosmetics, something with an expiration date) on the platform.