1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CPSC Civil Penalty News: Philips Lighting N.A. Agrees to Pay $2 Million Penalty

CPSC Civil Penalty News: Philips Lighting N.A. Agrees to Pay $2 Million Penalty

Client Alert | 3 min read | 12.17.15

On November 24, 2015, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that Philips Lighting North America had agreed to pay a $2 million civil penalty to resolve an enforcement matter involving floor lamps.

Philips Lighting recalled its EnergySaver and Marathon Fluorescent flood lamps back in August 2011 because of the risk that the glass would detach and strike people or objects underneath. 

According to the CPSC, Philips Lighting received numerous reports of the glass separating from lamps and proceeded with attempted design changes before reporting the matter to the CPSC. The civil penalty matter stemmed from this alleged failure to timely report. 

As part of the settlement agreement, Philips Lighting agreed not only to the civil penalty, but also to the implementation of a compliance program. The requirement to implement an internal, risk-based compliance program reflects an increasingly common trend in enforcement actions at the CPSC and at other federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Other CPSC Civil Penalties in 2015

Philips Lighting is certainly not the first company to pay a multi-million dollar penalty to resolve a CPSC enforcement action: 

  • In September 2015, Phil & Teds agreed to pay $3.5 million to resolve allegations that the company made material misrepresentation to staff during a 2011 investigation of high chair amputation incidents. 
  • In August 2015, Johnson Health Tech agreed to pay $3 million to resolve allegations that it failed to report smoking and sparking issues with its exercise equipment. Of note, this multi-million dollar civil penalty settlement occurred in a case in which no injuries were reported.

Other CPSC civil penalties announced in 2015 included a $1.825 million settlement by LG in July 2015 and a $3.4 million settlement by Office Depot in May 2015.

None of these, however, topped the highest CPSC penalty to date, a $4.3 million settlement by Baja announced back in October 2014. In that case, CPSC alleged that Baja failed to report gas cap leaks in its mini-bikes that could lead to fire and burn hazards.  

What Do the 2015 Penalty Cases Tell Us?

The Philips Lighting case confirms CPSC's continued aggressive pursuit of penalty matters, and the importance of effective internal compliance programs as a tool for reducing the risk of and providing a defense in consumer product safety and other regulatory enforcement matters. One New Year's Resolution for consumer product companies in 2016 should be to review their internal compliance and risk management practices and procedures to make sure that they are up to date, well documented, and robust. For more information about good risk management and compliance practices, see our Advertising & Product Risk Management page.

Other Articles in This Month's Edition:

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights