FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

Koorlian Mattresses Recalled Over Fire Hazard; No Identifying Codes in Notice

CPSC recall notice says the mattresses violate federal flammability standards and pose a risk of serious injury or death, but provides no model or serial numbers.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 7:22 p.m. ET
On August 20, 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission () announced a recall of Koorlian brand mattresses due to a fire hazard. The mattresses violate the mandatory flammability standard for mattresses, posing a risk of serious injury or death from fire, according to the recall notice. The recall involves Koorlian branded mattresses that are 10 inches thick, sold in Twin XL size, with a white top and blue sides, and sold compressed in a box. The sewn-in white label on one side includes "Dreams Bedding Technology PTE LTD," the manufacture date, and prototype ID "KY15Q290." mattresses are affected. No injuries have been reported. The notice does not provide any identifying codes, such as model numbers or serial numbers, for consumers to determine if their mattress is included in the recall. The mattresses were sold on Amazon by . Consumers should stop using the recalled mattress immediately and contact Dreams Bedding Technology to receive a free cover to bring the mattress into compliance with flammability standards, the notice states.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 23:22current

    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.