FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

CPSC Recalls Wantefully Hair Dryer Brushes Over Electrocution and Burn Hazards

About 2,295 units of the Wantefully hair dryer brush, model XR-8801, are recalled because they lack an immersion protection device and can overheat, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 10, 2026, 12:24 p.m. ET
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall on September 10, 2026, of Wantefully Hair Dryer Brushes, according to the agency's recall notice. The recall covers units of the Wantefully 2 in 1 Hair Dryer & Styler, One Step Hair Dryer Brush Straightner, and the Negative Ion Electric Hot Air Blow Dryer Comb, model number XR-8801. The hair dryers are black hot air dryer paddle brushes with a striped pink design and brush bristles, with three heat settings. XRUI and the model name XR-8801 are printed on the top of the product packaging. The said the recalled hair dryer brushes violate federal regulations for hair dryers because they lack an integrated immersion protection device, presenting a substantial product hazard and the risk of death or serious injury from electrocution or shock if the hair dryers fall into water while plugged in. The agency also said the hair dryer brushes can overheat, posing a burn hazard. The recall notice states there has been one report of the hair dryer overheating and melting, and no injuries have been reported. The hair dryers were sold online at Amazon.com from February 2026 through March 2026 for about $30, according to the recall notice. Consumers should unplug and stop using the recalled hair dryers immediately and contact Guang Zhou to receive a full refund, the said. Consumers will be asked to cut the power cord and provide a photo of the destroyed product to wantefully@163.com. The recall number is . The 's database records no other enforcement action by this firm.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 110 Sept 2026, 16:24current

    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.