FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

Sweet Cubby Children's Loungewear Sets Recalled Over Burn Hazard

The CPSC says about 12,461 two-piece loungewear sets sold on SHEIN.com violate the mandatory flammability standard for children's sleepwear.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 10, 2026, 1:24 p.m. ET
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced on Sept. 10, 2026, that Hong Kong Xuheyuan Trading Co., Ltd, doing business as Sweet Cubby, of China, is recalling all Sweet Cubby children's loungewear sets because they violate the mandatory flammability standard for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of serious burn injuries or death, according to the recall notice. The recall covers two-piece sets consisting of a short-sleeved shirt and matching shorts, sold in various colors and in children's sizes 5-6Y through 13-14Y. "Batch No.: 272779" and the size are printed on the sewn-in neck label and on the seam label, the notice states. The sets were sold online at SHEIN.com from June 2025 through May 2026 for between $8 and $12, according to the notice. The recall number is . No injuries have been reported, the notice states. The agency's recall database records no other enforcement action by this firm. Consumers should stop using the recalled loungewear sets immediately, take them away from children and contact Sweet Cubby for a full refund, the notice says. Consumers will be asked to destroy the sets by cutting them in half and send a photo of the destroyed sets to SweetCubby@163.com, then dispose of the destroyed product, according to the notice.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 110 Sept 2026, 17:24current

    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.