PIXLABBY Recalls 860 Silicone Sensory Magnetic Fidget Sliders Over Magnet Ingestion Risk
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of 860 fidget sliders following a child's hospitalization.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 10:23 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 19, 2026, 10:40 p.m. ET
Child Hospitalized After Ingesting Magnets From Recalled PIXLABBY Fidget Sliders
On August 6, 2026, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Huoshan County Haozhou E-commerce Co, doing business as PIXLABBY, of China, reported receiving a report involving a child who removed the silicone casing of a fidget slider, accessed two small magnets inside, and ingested them. The child was hospitalized. The incident involves about 860 PIXLABBY Silicone Sensory Magnetic Fidget Sliders, under recall number 26667.
According to a CPSC recall notice, the sliders violate the mandatory standard for toys because they can liberate loose high-powered magnets. When swallowed, these magnets can attract each other or metal objects across internal tissues, posing risks of intestinal perforations, twisting, blockage, blood poisoning, and death. The recall affects 6-PCS silicone fidget slider sets sold on Amazon in two-tone yellow/red, pink/yellow, orange/purple, blue/orange, green/blue, and red/green colors, featuring a clicking sound and the "PIXABBY" logo on the front of the box. The CPSC database lists no other enforcement action for this firm.
The agency instructs consumers to immediately take the fidget sliders away from children and stop using them. To obtain a full refund, consumers should throw away the fidget sliders and submit a photo of the disposed toys to ah1998zxc@gmail.com.
Aug 19, 2026, 10:23 p.m. ETFirst report
PIXLABBY Recalls 860 Silicone Magnetic Fidget Sliders Over Magnet Ingestion Hazard
On August 6, 2026, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced an open, developing recall of 860 PIXLABBY Silicone Sensory Magnetic Fidget Sliders. According to CPSC recall notice records, the firm involved is Huoshan County Haozhou E-commerce Co, doing business as PIXLABBY, of China. CPSC enforcement records list no other actions for this firm.
The recall, designated under recall number 26667, involves PIXLABBY's 6-PCS silicone magnetic fidget sliders. The products feature two-tone colors—yellow/red, pink/yellow, orange/purple, blue/orange, green/blue, and red/green—with different silicone textures on the top and bottom surfaces, and produce a clicking sound when slid. The "PIXABBY" logo appears on the front of the box. CPSC records state that the sliders violate the mandatory toy standard because they can liberate loose high-powered magnets. Swallowed magnets can attract each other or other metal objects across digestive walls, posing risks of intestinal perforations, twisting, blockage, blood poisoning, and death.
The CPSC and the firm are aware of a report involving a child who removed the silicone casing, accessed the two small magnets inside the slider, and ingested them. The child was hospitalized. Under the recall remedy, consumers should take the fidget sliders away from children, stop using them immediately, and contact PIXLABBY for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to throw away the fidget sliders and submit a photo of the disposed toys to ah1998zxc@gmail.com to receive the refund.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 02:53current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 02:23current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 02:40current
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.