Section 15(b) Reporting Requirements: 24-Hour Rule Explained

Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act requires manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers to notify the Consumer Product Safety Commission within 24 hours of obtaining information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a product fails to comply with an applicable safety rule, contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or has been the subject of at least three civil lawsuits involving death or grievous bodily injury within a two-year period that resulted in a court judgment or settlement. This article describes public regulatory requirements as of publication; it is not legal advice, and companies facing an actual reportability determination should consult qualified counsel or a compliance professional given the fact-specific nature of the "reasonably supports" standard.

When the 24-hour clock actually starts

The most consequential and most frequently misunderstood part of Section 15(b) is that the 24-hour clock starts when a company obtains information that reasonably supports a reportability conclusion, not when the company completes its own internal investigation, not when a formal written report is finalized, and not when a lawyer signs off. CPSC's own guidance is explicit that a company cannot use an unreasonably long internal investigation as a way to delay the reporting clock; a reasonable, expeditious evaluation is expected, but is not a license to defer the 24-hour requirement indefinitely while gathering additional certainty. Companies that wait for complete certainty before reporting are one of the most common patterns in the CPSC enforcement settlements involving 15(b) violations, because the standard is "reasonably supports," a real possibility standard, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, per the Substantial Product Hazard reporting rule at 16 CFR Part 1115.

What triggers a reportable obligation

Four separate categories can each independently trigger a Section 15(b) obligation. First, a determination that a product fails to comply with a consumer product safety rule, ban, or voluntary standard the company represented compliance with. Second, a product defect that could create a substantial product hazard, evaluated under 16 CFR Part 1115's factors including the severity of the risk, the number of defective units, and the pattern of the defect's manifestation. Third, a risk of serious injury or death that isn't necessarily tied to a defined "defect," such as a foreseeable misuse pattern producing genuine harm. Fourth, and less commonly triggered, the lawsuit pattern described above (three or more qualifying suits within two years resulting in judgment or settlement). A company only needs to meet one of these four categories, not all four, to have a reporting obligation.

Who is required to report

The obligation extends across the full commercial chain: manufacturers (including importers, who are treated as manufacturers for CPSA purposes under Section 3), distributors, and retailers. A retailer that becomes aware of a reportable hazard in a product it sells, even one it did not manufacture or import, has an independent Section 15(b) obligation and cannot simply rely on the manufacturer to report on its behalf, though in practice a manufacturer's report can sometimes satisfy the supply chain's collective obligation if properly coordinated. This is a common point of confusion for smaller retailers who assume reporting responsibility belongs entirely to the brand or importer, and CPSC's own Section 15(b) statutory text makes clear the obligation runs independently to each party in the chain.

How this differs from the eFiling / Product Registry requirement

Section 15(b) reporting and the July 8, 2026 Product Registry eFiling requirement address different points in a product's lifecycle and should not be conflated. eFiling is a pre-market, entry-level certification step confirming a product complies with applicable rules at the time of import. Section 15(b) is a post-market reporting obligation triggered any time after a product is already in commerce, whenever new information emerges suggesting it may not actually be compliant or may pose an unreasonable risk, regardless of what was certified at entry. A product that passed eFiling cleanly can still trigger a Section 15(b) obligation months or years later if a genuine defect or hazard pattern is later discovered; passing eFiling is not immunity from the ongoing reporting obligation.

What a compliant report actually contains

A Section 15(b) report (commonly called a "full report" once complete) must identify the product, describe the nature of the defect or hazard, state how many units are involved and where they were distributed, and describe what corrective action, if any, the company has taken or plans to take. Companies are permitted to file an initial, incomplete report to meet the 24-hour deadline while continuing to gather information, followed by supplemental information as it becomes available; this "report first, complete later" structure exists specifically because the standard expects prompt notice, not a fully resolved investigation, within the initial 24-hour window.

Penalty exposure for failing to report

Failure to report under Section 15(b), not paperwork gaps alone, is the violation type behind the largest published CPSC civil penalty settlements in recent years. Under 15 U.S.C. § 2069, a knowing violation can expose a company to civil penalties currently capped at $120,000 per single violation and $17,150,000 per related series of violations, figures set by a Federal Register notice published Dec 1, 2021 and due for their next statutory inflation adjustment Dec 1, 2026. Under 16 CFR Part 1119, CPSC weighs the severity of the underlying risk, whether an injury actually occurred, how many units were involved, and the company's size and prior compliance history before proposing a specific penalty amount, which is then typically resolved through a negotiated settlement agreement published in the Federal Register rather than run through a public formula.

How Section 15(b) reports connect to recalls and corrective action

Filing a Section 15(b) report is not, by itself, a recall. In most cases, CPSC staff reviews the report, may request additional information or testing data, and then works with the company to determine whether a corrective action, ranging from a public warning to a full consumer recall with refund, repair, or replacement remedies, is warranted given the severity and scope of the hazard. This negotiation process is why the time between an initial 15(b) report and a public recall announcement can span weeks or months even though the initial report itself was filed within 24 hours; the reporting deadline governs notice to CPSC, not the timeline for resolving what happens next. Companies sometimes assume filing quickly and then facing a slow recall negotiation reflects poorly on their compliance posture, but CPSC's own public recall announcements routinely show this gap as a normal part of the process rather than a sign anything went wrong.

Voluntary corrective action plans and their relationship to reporting

A company can propose a voluntary corrective action plan to CPSC as part of resolving a Section 15(b) report, and doing so proactively, rather than waiting for CPSC to propose remedies unilaterally, is generally viewed favorably in how a case resolves, including penalty negotiations if a civil penalty is also being pursued for a late or missed initial report. This does not change the underlying 24-hour reporting deadline itself; a company cannot substitute a fast voluntary corrective action for a report that should have been filed earlier, since the two are separate obligations evaluated on separate timelines. Compliance teams sometimes conflate "we're already fixing it" with "we don't need to report it," which is a mistake CPSC enforcement settlements have specifically penalized when the underlying report was delayed while a fix was developed internally.

Common mistakes companies make

The most common Section 15(b) mistake is treating "we're not sure yet" as a reason to delay reporting rather than a reason to file an initial report and continue investigating. A second common mistake is a legal or compliance team conducting a lengthy root-cause investigation before looping in anyone with reporting authority, which by itself can consume the 24-hour window before a reporting decision is even considered. A third is assuming a low complaint count means no report is required. CPSC's own enforcement history shows that severity of potential harm, not complaint volume alone, drives reportability, meaning a single well-documented serious-injury report can trigger an obligation that a much larger volume of minor complaints would not.

How to build an internal process that meets the standard

A defensible Section 15(b) process generally includes: a designated point of contact empowered to make or escalate a reporting decision without needing full executive sign-off first, a documented internal escalation path with a target decision time meaningfully shorter than 24 hours to leave room for filing, a standing relationship with product safety counsel who can be reached quickly rather than located for the first time during an active incident, and a bias toward filing an initial report when the "reasonably supports" threshold is plausibly met rather than waiting for certainty. Companies that only build this process after their first CPSC inquiry are, by definition, building it too late for the incident that prompted it.

The relationship between Section 15(b) and product liability litigation

A Section 15(b) report is a regulatory notice to CPSC, not an admission of legal liability, and companies sometimes delay reporting out of a mistaken belief that filing creates litigation exposure it would not otherwise have. In practice, the underlying facts supporting a reportable hazard exist and are discoverable in litigation regardless of whether a report was filed; a delayed or missing report adds a separate, independent compliance violation on top of whatever product liability exposure already existed from the underlying defect, without reducing the original exposure at all. Product safety counsel experienced in this area generally advise treating the reporting decision and the litigation-strategy decision as related but analytically separate questions, rather than letting litigation caution drive a decision that has its own independent statutory deadline.

FAQ

Does Section 15(b) apply to products sold only through a marketplace like Amazon or TikTok Shop? Yes. The reporting obligation attaches to the manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer role a company plays, not to the sales channel. A marketplace seller acting as the importer of record has the same Section 15(b) obligation as a traditional wholesale importer.

Can a company avoid reporting by voluntarily recalling a product instead? No. A voluntary corrective action does not substitute for the reporting obligation; in practice, most CPSC-coordinated recalls begin with a Section 15(b) report, and the recall itself is typically negotiated with CPSC after the report is filed, not instead of filing one.

What counts as "obtaining information" that starts the clock? Any reasonably reliable information reaching a person or function within the company responsible for product safety decisions, including customer complaints, internal quality data, retailer chargebacks tied to safety concerns, or a pattern surfacing in returns data, can start the clock, not only a formal incident report or a lawsuit filing.

Is there a minimum number of affected units before Section 15(b) applies? No fixed minimum exists in the statute. A hazard affecting even a small number of units can be reportable if the risk of serious injury or death is severe enough; unit count affects the scope and remedy CPSC ultimately negotiates, not whether the initial reporting obligation exists, and a single well-documented incident involving a serious injury has, in practice, been sufficient on its own to support a reportability determination in past enforcement matters.

Does a Section 15(b) report become public? Yes, in most cases. CPSC's recall database and, separately, its publicly searchable incident report database (SaferProducts.gov) make substantial hazard information available to the public, though the timing and specific content disclosed depends on the case and any negotiated confidentiality treatment for legitimately proprietary business information submitted alongside the report, so companies preparing a report should assume a reasonable likelihood of eventual public visibility rather than treating the filing as a purely internal communication with CPSC.

Where can a company get authoritative guidance on a specific reportability question? CPSC's Reporting Requirements guidance page is the primary public source, and given the fact-specific "reasonably supports" standard, companies facing an actual borderline determination should engage product safety counsel rather than rely solely on general guidance, including this article.

Related reading: see our CPSC eFiling rule guide for the pre-market certification requirement this post's reporting obligation is separate from, and the CPSC penalty calculator for illustrative civil penalty exposure. For platform-specific compliance guidance, see our Amazon and Shopify pages, or run a free readiness check at EntryProof.

FAQ

Does Section 15(b) apply to products sold only through a marketplace like Amazon or TikTok Shop?

Yes. The reporting obligation attaches to the manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer role a company plays, not to the sales channel. A marketplace seller acting as the importer of record has the same Section 15(b) obligation as a traditional wholesale importer.

Can a company avoid reporting by voluntarily recalling a product instead?

No. A voluntary corrective action does not substitute for the reporting obligation; in practice, most CPSC-coordinated recalls begin with a Section 15(b) report, and the recall itself is typically negotiated with CPSC after the report is filed, not instead of filing one.

What counts as "obtaining information" that starts the clock?

Any reasonably reliable information reaching a person or function within the company responsible for product safety decisions, including customer complaints, internal quality data, retailer chargebacks tied to safety concerns, or a pattern surfacing in returns data, can start the clock, not only a formal incident report or a lawsuit filing.

Is there a minimum number of affected units before Section 15(b) applies?

No fixed minimum exists in the statute. A hazard affecting even a small number of units can be reportable if the risk of serious injury or death is severe enough; unit count affects the scope and remedy CPSC ultimately negotiates, not whether the initial reporting obligation exists, and a single well-documented incident involving a serious injury has, in practice, been sufficient on its own to support a reportability determination in past enforcement matters.

Does a Section 15(b) report become public?

Yes, in most cases. CPSC's recall database and, separately, its publicly searchable incident report database (SaferProducts.gov) make substantial hazard information available to the public, though the timing and specific content disclosed depends on the case and any negotiated confidentiality treatment for legitimately proprietary business information submitted alongside the report, so companies preparing a report should assume a reasonable likelihood of eventual public visibility rather than treating the filing as a purely internal communication with CPSC.

Where can a company get authoritative guidance on a specific reportability question?

[CPSC's Reporting Requirements guidance page](https://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Business-Education/Reporting-Requirements) is the primary public source, and given the fact-specific "reasonably supports" standard, companies facing an actual borderline determination should engage product safety counsel rather than rely solely on general guidance, including this article.