CPSC Reports Injuries in Gizoon Dresser Recall
Federal regulators say injuries have been reported involving recalled Gizoon six-drawer dressers, which failed stability standards.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 3, 2026, 10:38 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 3, 2026, 10:38 a.m. ETFirst report
Gizoon Direct Recalls Six-Drawer Dressers Over Tip-Over Hazard
Gizoon Direct is recalling about 4,396 Gizoon-branded six-drawer double wood dressers, according to a recall notice posted September 3, 2026, by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The dressers, sold in white and black, measure about 47.3 inches wide, 15.7 inches long, and 31.5 inches tall, and weigh about 88.2 pounds. The model numbers “AP47-W” or “AP47-B” are printed on the packaging.
The recalled dressers are unstable if not anchored to the wall, posing tip-over and entrapment hazards that can result in serious injury or death to children, the CPSC said. The dressers violate the mandatory safety standards under the STURDY Act. No injuries have been reported.
The CPSC advises consumers to stop using the recalled dressers immediately if they are not anchored to the wall, place them in an area children cannot access, and contact Gizoon Direct for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to write “RECALLED” in permanent marker on the top and all sides of the dresser, send a photo to office@gizoon.com, and then dispose of the product.
The recall notice, identified as recall number 26736, is available on the CPSC website. The CPSC database records no other enforcement action by this firm.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- Two Six Drawer Dressers Sold on Amazon and Wayfair Recalled for Failing the Federal Tip Over Standardmedicaldaily.com
- https://cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Gizoon-Direct-Recalls-Six-Drawer-Double-Dressers-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Tip-Over-and-Entrapment-Hazards-Violates-Mandatory-Standard-for-Clothing-Storage-Units
Revision history
- Version 13 Sept 2026, 14:38current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 13:23current
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.