FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 5

CPSC Expands Recall of Cpzzkq Baby Loungers Sold on Amazon Over Suffocation Risk

The July 30, 2026 notice adds 195 green and purple loungers to an April 2026 recall, bringing the total to about 2,195.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 9:42 a.m. ET
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced on July 30, 2026 an expansion of a recall of Cpzzkq baby loungers, recall number . According to the recall notice, the action covers an additional 195 loungers sold in green and purple with "Model No: UMCDB01" printed on a stacked label on the side of the lounger. Loungers in white, grayish blue, pink, zuma blue and brown were previously recalled in April 2026. The notice puts the quantity at about 2,195, noting that the firm previously recalled 2,100 baby loungers in April 2026. All the recalled loungers are rectangular, made of a foam pad with a cloth cover, and have "CPZZKQ" printed on a side label. The recalling firm is listed as , and the loungers were sold on Amazon. The states the loungers violate the mandatory safety standard for infant support cushions because the padding can obstruct an infant's breathing, posing a serious risk of injury or deadly suffocation hazard. No injuries have been reported, according to the notice. The agency says consumers should stop using the loungers immediately and contact CetoPMax for a refund. Consumers will be asked to remove the foam and pad from the cover and cut the cover, foam and pad in half, then email photos of the destroyed pieces to CetoPMaxRecall@outlook.com to receive a refund. The 's own recall database records no other enforcement action by this firm. That history says nothing about fault in this action. For readers unsure whether they own one: baby loungers fall in the product category U.S. regulators call "infant support cushions" — infant products filled with or made of resilient material such as foam, fibrous batting or granular material (or a gel, liquid or gas), designed to support an infant's weight, or part of it, while the baby is reclining or lying on its back, front or side, with the definition covering any removable fabric cover sold with the cushion, according to rulemaking materials and the Federal Register safety standard for infant support cushions. The same family includes infant pillows, nursing pillows with a lounging function and props used for "tummy time," and units like this one are typically a foam insert plus an inner pad inside a zip-off textile cover with a model-number label on the side. Those documents describe the products as finished retail items bought directly by parents and caregivers, mostly sold online, at prices averaging roughly $30 and ranging from under $15 to over $250, from a fragmented supply base of several thousand manufacturers and importers, including direct foreign shippers. That background describes the product category only and says nothing about this recall.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 57 Aug 2026, 13:42current

    No new facts; headline and dek added, body unchanged.

  2. Version 47 Aug 2026, 09:26

    Replaced unsourced product-category details (raised perimeter, floor use, registration cards, certification) with the definition, market and price information actually contained in the CPSC and Federal Register reference documents.

  3. Version 37 Aug 2026, 04:52

    Removed price, retail-channel and manufacturer-count details not supported by the reference material; replaced with the sourced regulatory definition and certification requirements, and dropped the 'developing recall' line.

  4. Version 27 Aug 2026, 00:12

    Corrected the product-category description to match CPSC guidance (floor-set supervised-use cushion, not marketed as a sleep product), added retail and supply-chain detail, and cited the additional CPSC reference documents.

  5. Version 16 Aug 2026, 19:35

    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.