FDA Lists Class II Recall for Copan WASP WASPLab WebApp Software

An ongoing Class II action covers WASPLab WebApp software over a defect that may stop users from overwriting results. Affected code: Lot Code: WebApp version 2.33.1, 2.33.3 and 2.34.2.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 18, 2026, 1:55 a.m. ET

Developing · not yet checked for updates

This recall is open. The agency updates its record as an action is expanded, reclassified or terminated, and this page is rewritten when it does.

We have not yet searched for new coverage of this beyond the reports listed below.

An recall action involving software for the WASPLab automated microbiology system has been classified as , according to the FDA medical device enforcement report for the action. The action, listed under recall number , was initiated on June 16, 2026, and carries a report date of August 12, 2026. The enforcement record lists the current status of the action as . The recall covers 's WASPLab, Model/Catalog Number W087. The identifying code listed in the enforcement report is: - **Lot Code: WebApp version 2.33.1, 2.33.3 and 2.34.2** Laboratories should check the software version shown in their own WASPLab WebApp interface against that entry exactly as it appears above. According to the same FDA enforcement report, the recall was initiated "[d]ue to a software issue within the WebApp that potentially prevents the user to overwrite the results." The record lists a quantity of 1 and describes distribution as "" The FDA product description in the record identifies the brand and product name as WASPLab and states that the device "is an automated device intended to be used for the incubation and the digital imaging of agar culture plates streaked with microbiological specimens derived by the human body for microbiological investigations," with WebApp software serving as the user interface of the WASPLab device. Under the FDA's published recall definitions, a recall is the category used where exposure to a product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences, and where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote. Regulatory filings and clinical microbiology literature describe WASPLab as automated laboratory equipment operated by trained staff in clinical microbiology settings to incubate and digitally image culture plates, rather than a consumer product.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 118 Aug 2026, 05:55current
First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.