FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

CPSC Recalls About 9,000 FJTJBSI Six-Drawer Dressers Over Tip-Over and Entrapment Hazards

The Consumer Product Safety Commission says the unanchored dressers violate the mandatory safety standard for clothing storage units; no injuries have been reported.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 10, 2026, 2:24 p.m. ET
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall on September 10, 2026, of FJTJBSI six-drawer dressers, according to the agency's recall notice. The recall covers black or white wood dressers measuring about 15.1 inches long, 27.6 inches wide and 42.2 inches high, weighing 68 pounds, with six drawers and silver or black handles. The codes "LBS-XD-4-2-BLK-023" or "LBS-XD-4-2-WIT-024" are printed on a label on the product packaging. The said the dressers are unstable if they are not anchored to the wall, posing tip-over and entrapment hazards that can result in risks of serious injuries or death to children, and that they violate the mandatory safety standards required by the STURDY Act. No injuries have been reported, according to the recall notice. The agency said the dressers were sold online at Amazon.com from November 2024 through July 2026 for about $170. The firm named in the notice is Fujian Laobosi Cross-Border E-commerce Co., Ltd., doing business as FJTJBSI, of China. The recall number is . Consumers should stop using the recalled dressers immediately if they are not anchored to the wall, place them in an area that children cannot access and contact FJTJBSI for a full refund, the said. Consumers will be asked to write in permanent marker "RECALLED" on the dresser and send a photo of the marked dresser to FJTJBSIrecall@outlook.com, then dispose of the recalled product. The 's database records no other enforcement action by this firm.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 110 Sept 2026, 18:24current

    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.