FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

CPSC Recalls About 1,738 DHASUWT Hair Dryer Brushes Over Shock and Fire Hazards

The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall of DHASUWT hair dryer brushes sold on Amazon.com, citing electrocution, shock, smoking and fire risks.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 10, 2026, 1:54 p.m. ET
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced on September 10, 2026, the recall of DHASUWT Hair Dryer and Blow Dryer Brushes, according to the agency's recall notice. The recall covers model number XR-8801, a black hot air dryer paddle brush with a pink design and brush bristles, three heat settings, and packaging labeled XRUI with the model name XR-8801. The said the recalled hair dryer brushes lack an integrated immersion protection device, presenting a substantial product hazard and posing the risk of death or serious injury from electrocution or shock if the hair dryers fall into water while plugged in to an electrical source. The agency also cited the risk of death or serious injury from smoking and fire hazards, and said the products violate federal regulations. The recall notice states there have been 10 reported incidents of the hair dryer smoking or catching fire, with no injuries reported. The products were sold at Amazon.com from October 2024 through June 2026 for about $27, according to the notice, which identifies the firm as Shenzhen Weihua Chenyu Technology Co., Ltd, dba Junkins, of China. Consumers should unplug and stop using the recalled hair dryers immediately and contact Junkins to receive a full refund, the said. Consumers will be asked to cut the power cord and provide a photo of the destroyed product to DHASUWT_recall@163.com, according to the notice. The recall number is . The agency's recall database records no other enforcement action by this firm. The investigation is ongoing.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 110 Sept 2026, 17:54current

    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.