FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

CPSC Recalls Lontcs Busy Boards Over Lead in Zipper

About 1,835 Lontcs Busy Board toys are being recalled because their zipper contains lead levels exceeding the federal lead paint ban, according to a CPSC recall notice.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 10, 2026, 11:24 a.m. ET
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of Lontcs Busy Board toys on Sept. 10, 2026, according to the agency's recall notice. The recall covers units, and the said no injuries have been reported. The notice states that the toys' zipper contains levels of lead that exceed the standard set in the federal lead paint ban. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health issues, the agency said. The recalled product is described in the notice as a wood board with a metal handle and multiple attached components, including a black plastic buckle with cream colored straps, a brown zipper, a metal latch, a caster wheel, a white doorbell, a lock with keys, a music box with crank, a zig zag duck puzzle, an abacus with three rows of white, red and tan beads, and a white fidget spinner. The recall, number , was initiated by the firm Xianyouxianlichengshaungqiaotouqichemeirongdian (Xianyou County Licheng Shuangqiaotou Auto Beauty Shop), doing business as SQT LLC, of China, according to the notice. The 's database records no other enforcement action by this firm. Consumers should stop using the busy boards immediately and contact SQT for a full refund, the notice says. Consumers will be asked to destroy the toys by unscrewing its components, write in permanent marker "RECALLED" on the board, and send a photo of the destroyed toy to Lontcs@163.com. Consumers should then dispose of the destroyed product.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 110 Sept 2026, 15:24current

    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.