FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 5

CPSC Recalls About 16,809 EnHomee 9-Drawer Fabric Dressers Over Tip-Over Hazard

The agency's July 23, 2026 notice says the dressers are unstable if not anchored to a wall and violate the mandatory clothing storage unit standard; no injuries have been reported.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 11:09 a.m. ET
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission published a recall notice on July 23, 2026 covering EnHomee 9-Drawer Fabric Dressers, recall number . According to the recall notice, the dressers are unstable if they are not anchored to the wall, posing tip-over and entrapment hazards that can result in risk of serious injuries or death to children, and they violate the mandatory safety standards required by the STURDY Act. The notice states that no injuries have been reported. The recall notice identifies the firm as , and says the dressers were sold on Walmart.com by Raybee-Direct. The recalled dressers come in white, brown, gray and black, with nine fabric drawers and metal frames. Per the product description, they are 15.3 inches wide, 27.5 inches tall, 47.2 inches long and weigh 41.3 pounds. Only orders placed before March 30, 2026 are part of the recall. The says consumers should stop using the recalled dressers immediately if they are not anchored to the wall and place them where children cannot access them. Consumers should contact Raybee-Direct for instructions on identifying affected units and disposing of the dressers to receive a full refund, and will be asked to submit a photo to RaybeeRecall@outlook.com demonstrating disposal. For readers unsure whether they own one: background reference sources — the 's 2023 final rule on clothing storage units published in the Federal Register, the agency's rulemaking document on Regulations.gov, and ASTM's listing for the standard — describe this style of product as a "clothing storage unit," free-standing furniture intended for storing clothing and typical of bedroom furniture. Those sources describe the mandatory standard, ASTM F2057-23 adopted under the STURDY Act, as covering chests, chests of drawers, bureaus and dressers 27 inches or taller, requiring stability testing and permanent warning labels, since such units are designed to be anchored to a wall in use. In this style the structure is a tubular metal frame rather than a rigid wooden case, with soft fabric drawer bins; it is a finished consumer item bought by households, not an industrial component. The 's own recall database records no other enforcement action by this firm; that history says nothing about fault in this action.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 57 Aug 2026, 15:09current

    Removed the closing line noting the recall was newly posted; no new facts added.

  2. Version 47 Aug 2026, 12:09

    Replaced unsupported background attributions (Intertek, Bryan Cave, 16 CFR 1261, Sept. 1 2023 date) with the CPSC final rule, Regulations.gov and ASTM reference sources actually supplied.

  3. Version 37 Aug 2026, 07:16

    Replaced the product-background paragraph's sourcing with the ASTM F2057-23 scope and Intertek/BCLP standard summaries, dropping the Federal Register and Wikipedia references, and added the 16 CFR part 1261 applicability date.

  4. Version 27 Aug 2026, 02:47

    Replaced the unsourced Merriam-Webster description with the supplied reference material (ASTM F2057/CPSC clothing storage unit definition, metal-frame construction, ready-to-assemble sale) and added the corresponding source links.

  5. Version 16 Aug 2026, 22:22

    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.