FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

CPSC Reports Injuries in JINHEZO LED Tea Light Recall

The agency says injuries have been reported in connection with the recalled tea lights, which pose a battery ingestion hazard.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 6:46 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 6:53 p.m. ET
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission () reported on August 20, 2026, that injuries have been reported in connection with the recalled JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights. The recall notice states that the tea lights violate the mandatory safety standard for consumer products with button cell batteries because the batteries can be easily accessed by children, posing an ingestion hazard. The notice also says the packaging and product lack required warnings under Reese's Law. The recall, initiated on August 20, 2026, involves units of JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights. The circular tea lights are clear with a white base, about 1 inch in diameter and 1.14 inches tall, and come in packs of 24 lights with 48 coin-cell batteries. The advises consumers to stop using the recalled tea lights immediately and contact Mystic ZO for a full refund. To receive a refund, consumers must email their order number or bar code number, if available, along with a photo of the tea lights disposed of in the trash to jinhemaoyi2016@sina.com. The notice notes that button cell batteries are hazardous and should be disposed of or recycled following local hazardous waste procedures. The recall notice lists the importer as . The 's database records no other enforcement action by this firm. The recall number is .

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 20, 2026, 6:46 p.m. ETFirst report

    JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights Recalled Over Battery Ingestion Hazard

    On August 20, 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall of JINHEZO Mini Waterproof LED Tea Lights, imported by Shenzhen Jinhe Trade Co., Ltd., dba Mystic ZO, of China. The recall notice states that the button batteries can be easily accessed by children, posing an ingestion hazard, and that the packaging and product lack the warnings required under Reese's Law. No injuries have been reported.

    The recalled tea lights are clear with a white base, about 1 inch in diameter and 1.14 inches tall, and come in packs of 24 lights with 48 coin-cell batteries. About 2,798 units are affected. The recall number is 26713.

    Consumers should stop using the recalled tea lights immediately and contact Mystic ZO for a full refund. To receive a refund, consumers must email their order number or bar code number, if available, along with a photo of the tea lights disposed of in the trash to jinhemaoyi2016@sina.com. The notice advises that button cell batteries are hazardous and should be disposed of or recycled following local hazardous waste procedures.

    The CPSC database records no other enforcement action by this firm.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 22:46current

    First published.

  2. Version 120 Aug 2026, 22:53current

    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.