FDA Reports Class II Recall of Four Refurbished SNOO Smart Sleepers

An ongoing FDA Class II recall covers four pre-loved SNOO Smart Sleeper bassinets that failed quality standards prior to distribution.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 18, 2026, 2:25 a.m. ET

Developing · not yet checked for updates

This recall is open. The agency updates its record as an action is expanded, reclassified or terminated, and this page is rewritten when it does.

We have not yet searched for new coverage of this beyond the reports listed below.

According to FDA enforcement report , an recall has been retroactively reported for four units of . Pre-loved SNOO Smart Sleeper Model:S1000 bassinets. The recall was initiated on May 15, 2024, and reported by the agency on August 12, 2026. The event status is open and developing. Official FDA records state that the recall was initiated because refurbished bassinets failed to meet quality standards prior to distribution. The affected units were distributed nationwide in the states of Pennsylvania, Washington, California, and New Jersey. The recall covers Model:S1000 units with Lot Codes 9677201861339395, 3023201712722817, 8714212700040040, and 0069193417621270. According to patent records, the product is a mains-powered infant bassinet featuring an electric drive mechanism and sound system for calming infants. The FDA defines a classification as a situation where use of or exposure to a violative product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences, or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote. FDA database records list no other enforcement actions for . The enforcement record does not state specific remedy instructions for consumers.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 118 Aug 2026, 06:25current
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.