Injuries Reported in Recall of Brookstone-Branded Tabletop Fire Pits
Southern Telecom has received two injury reports related to recalled Brookstone-branded tabletop fire pits.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 10:31 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 20, 2026, 10:31 a.m. ETFirst report
Southern Telecom Recalls Brookstone-Branded Tabletop Fire Pits Over Burn Hazard
On August 13, 2026, Southern Telecom Inc., of Brooklyn, New York, recalled about 48,700 Brookstone-branded Tabletop Fire Pits, according to Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) official records. Official records state that use of the fire pits can result in uncontrolled pool fires where flames burn across the surface of pooled or spilled alcohol, as well as flame jetting from fuel containers, posing a risk of serious or fatal burns.
According to CPSC records, Southern Telecom has received two reports of flame jetting and flames escaping from the concrete container, resulting in two injuries including second-degree and third-degree burns. The recall, listed under recall number 26687, involves indoor/outdoor Tabletop Fire Pits featuring a round or hexagonal concrete open reservoir intended to contain burning liquid alcohol. Affected products include model number BSFIREPIT01 (UPC code 680079015930), model number BSFIREPIT02 (UPC code 680079015947), and model number BSFIREPIT03 (UPC code 680079015954). The model number and UPC code are located on the bottom of the product packaging.
CPSC records instruct consumers to stop using the fire pits immediately and contact Southern Telecom to receive a full refund. Consumers can email a photo of the fire pit with "Recalled," their name, and the date written on it in permanent marker to support@customersupport123.com and then dispose of the product. The official records advise not to sell or give away the products.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 14:31current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 14:32current
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.