FirstAlerts

CPSC Recalls COMMOWNER Electric Pressure Washers Over Electrocution Risk

AZ Home Concept Ltd. recalls 1,694 pressure washers that lack required GFCI protection.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 10:32 a.m. ET
On August 13, 2026, the Consumer Product Safety Commission () announced a recall for COMMOWNER Electric Pressure Washers imported by . The open recall, designated as recall number , involves 3 GPM electric pressure washers in orange, green, or blue with black parts. The units measure about 11 inches deep by 9 inches wide and 25 inches high, and came with a 500 ml tank, foam cannon, four quick connect nozzles, and a 33-foot hose. Model number "HD14P-Z" is printed on a label on the back of the pressure washer, and units may have also been listed as model number HX18 when purchased. recall records indicate that the pressure washers lack an integral ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI). Because the power cord is short, it may encourage the use of an extension cord, posing serious risks of injury or death from shock and electrocution hazards. records state that no injuries have been reported.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. 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.