FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

CPSC Recalls CuberShop Magnetic Speed Cubes Over Magnet Ingestion Hazard

About 132 puzzle cubes imported by SKY CUBE HK are subject to recall due to loose high-powered magnets included in the packaging.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 10:32 a.m. ET
On August 13, 2026, the Consumer Product Safety Commission () announced a recall of CuberShop Magnetic Stickerless Speed Cubes, model YJ MGC 5×5. According to official recall records, the product is a handheld 5×5 mechanical puzzle cube consisting of interlocking plastic pieces with six colored sides and the "MGC" logo printed on the center of the cubes. The packaging consists of a box with "MGC" and "5x5" printed on the sides, along with spare magnets packaged separately in a sealed plastic bag. The items were imported by . The record states that the recalled cubes violate the mandatory standard for toys because they were packaged with loose high-powered magnets, posing an ingestion hazard to children. If swallowed, the magnets can attract each other or other metal objects and become lodged in the digestive system, which can result in perforations, twisting, or blockage of the intestines, blood poisoning, and death. No injuries have been reported under recall number . Official records state that consumers should take the recalled loose magnets away from children, stop using them immediately, and contact SKY CUBE HK for information on receiving a $5 refund. Consumers will be asked to throw away the magnets and email a photo of the disposed magnets to recall@cubershop.com. Consumers may keep the cube itself.

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.