CPSC Recalls Cade California Electronic Finger Light Toys Over Battery Ingestion Risk
About 179,739 units of the projecting finger lights are covered by the recall, which the agency says violate the mandatory safety standard for toys because their button cell batteries can be easily accessed by children.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 10, 2026, 3:46 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 10, 2026, 3:50 p.m. ET
CPSC Recalls Cade California Electronic Finger Light Toys Over Battery Ingestion Risk
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall on Sept. 10, 2026, of Cade California Electronic Projecting Finger Light Toys, citing a risk of serious injury or death from battery ingestion, according to the agency's recall notice.
The recall covers about 179,739 units, the CPSC said. The finger lights contain three button cell batteries, come 50 pieces to a box in white, blue, red and green, and carry labels reading "California Cade Electronic" and "Finger Flashlights" on the front of the package, according to the notice.
The agency said the toys violate the mandatory safety standard for toys because the button cell batteries can be easily accessed by children. If button cell or coin batteries are swallowed, the ingested batteries can cause serious injuries, including internal chemical burns, and death, the CPSC said. No injuries have been reported, according to the notice.
The recall, number 26761, was initiated on Sept. 10, 2026, the CPSC said. The agency's database records no other enforcement action by the firm, California Cade Electronic, LLC, of Hacienda Heights, California.
Consumers should stop using the recalled toys immediately, take them away from children and contact Cade California Electronic for a full refund, the CPSC said. Consumers will be asked to properly dispose of the finger lights into the trash and send a photo of the disposed product to ccecamazonservice@gmail.com, according to the notice. The agency noted that button cell batteries are hazardous and should be disposed of or recycled by following local hazardous waste procedures.
Sep 10, 2026, 3:46 p.m. ETFirst report
CPSC Recalls Cade California Electronic Finger Light Toys Over Battery Ingestion Risk
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall on September 10, 2026, of Cade California Electronic Projecting Finger Light Toys, according to the agency's recall notice. The recall covers about 179,739 units, the notice states, and carries recall number 26761.
The notice says the toys violate the mandatory safety standard for toys because they contain button cell batteries that can be easily accessed by children. If button cell or coin batteries are swallowed, the ingested batteries can cause serious injuries, including internal chemical burns, and death, according to the notice. No injuries have been reported, the notice states.
The recalled finger lights contain three button cell batteries and come 50 pieces in a box in white, blue, red and green, according to the notice. The notice says the finger lights have "California Cade Electronic" and "Finger Flashlights" printed on labels located on the front of the package. The firm named in the notice is California Cade Electronic, LLC, of Hacienda Heights, California.
Consumers should stop using the recalled toys immediately, take them away from children and contact Cade California Electronic for a full refund, the notice says. Consumers will be asked to properly dispose of the finger lights into the trash and send a photo of the disposed product to ccecamazonservice@gmail.com, according to the notice. The notice adds that button cell batteries are hazardous and should be disposed of or recycled by following local hazardous waste procedures.
The CPSC's database records no other enforcement action by this firm.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 19:53current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 19:46current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 19:50current
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.