When I gave birth to my first baby over a decade ago, I had many options for baby products to put her down in. Baby bouncers, baby pillows, baby rockers — all manner of vessels that could contain her little body so I could do things like go to the bathroom, cook dinner, or simply give my tired arms a break. Shopping for a relative’s baby registry recently, I was struck by how few of the items that granted me sanity in my early days of motherhood are available to today’s mothers. One such item, the Fisher-Price Rock ’n Play, was famously recalled years ago. I have mine stored in my basement just in case I have another baby. That item is the only way my reflux babies would let me put them down long enough for me to make dinner for my family.
The reasons behind the recall were dubious: Several babies too old for the contraption were placed in it unrestrained and then left unsupervised. After rolling over on the inclined surface, they suffocated. A tragedy; unreservedly, one would have to be a monster to say those deaths were anything but. But the misuse of the item has meant that, for millions of mothers, we were denied the ability to use the device safely for our babies.
The Rock ’n Play isn’t the only baby item taken off the shelves because of an overly aggressive recall system.
Leachco, a small, family-owned business, is facing legal action from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which claims its infant product, the Podster, is a safety hazard despite clear usage warnings.
In its warning notice, the CPSC explained, “CPSC continues to investigate the Podsters and Leachco is refusing to conduct a voluntary recall of the product. CPSC is aware of two infants who were placed on a Podster and suffocated when, due to a change in position, their noses and mouths were obstructed by the Podster or another object. The infants, 17-days old and four-months old, died in January 2018 and December 2015 in the U.S.”
The CPSC blames the company for deaths linked to improper use of the product, even though these incidents occurred when users ignored safety guidelines. Much like the Rock ’n Play, customer misuse drove the federal government to demand not only a recall but an end to sales of future products.
For a company such as Fisher-Price, the recall was an incredible burden. For Jamie and Clyde Leach, who started their small business in 1988, the recalls were catastrophic not just for their business but for their entire lives. Jamie told the Washington Examiner, “When the federal government chooses to unjustly pursue you and eliminate your business, livelihood, future, and positive reputation, it shatters one’s mind, spirit, and body. Every facet of daily life dramatically changes. Sleep, appetite, finances, and the creativity and innovation we rely on for all come to a screeching halt.”
Leachco argues that the CPSC’s actions are arbitrary and violate due process, as the agency is prosecuting the company through an in-house, biased administrative process. The company contends this structure is unconstitutional and infringes on its rights to a fair trial. Leachco has filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the CPSC’s claims and the proceedings.
Oliver Dunford, a senior attorney at the nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation, represents the company. The Leaches’ legal fees became unsustainable, leading the couple to seek out PLF, which offers free-of-charge representation in cases that aren’t just procedural but also ideological. Speaking with the Washington Examiner, Dunford explained that PLF’s interest is getting cases in front of real courts from the outset. The one-sided nature of these trials is akin to getting pulled over and the police captain rules on your ticket. Dunford explained that PLF’s motivation to represent the Leachco case is due to their belief that “You should get a real court when life, liberty, or property are at issue.”
Dunford told the Washington Examiner, “We took this case because the CPSC has extremely broad discretion to determine which products present a ‘substantial product hazard.’ The agency itself adopted a set of factors that it may or may not consider, and manufacturers can’t know in advance which factors will apply. Adding to the problem is the CPSC’s in-house enforcement procedure. The CPSC itself authorizes enforcement actions, its enforcement lawyers prosecute the case, and the appeal goes back to the CPSC. Only after the CPSC makes its decision may a regulated party seek review in an independent federal court.”
Dunford went on to explain, “Most companies can’t afford to go through this lengthy process, and the CPSC knows it. Here, as is often the case with today’s administrative state, the process is the punishment. And agencies can get their way merely by threatening to bring in-house enforcement actions. PLF hopes that this case will help force the agency to use its resources to go after only truly hazardous products.”
The fact that the company was subjected to this lengthy and costly process should meet the legal definition of harm. With 40 employees, Leachco is a small business with $5 million to $6 million in annual revenue, yet the CPSC, a government agency without a single staff member who understands what it takes to operate a business, quibbled that the family-run business wasn’t in fact “small.”
Each Podster has clear instructions and warnings stating it is only for use with awake and supervised infants. Despite these warnings, over the 13 years the Podster was on the market, three infant deaths have occurred — but not due to the product itself. In one case, a day care worker placed an infant in a Podster inside a crib and left the baby unattended with a bottle for over 90 minutes — violating Leachco’s guidelines, state regulations, and the day care’s own policies. As a result, the day care lost its license and was shut down. A similar situation occurred in a home day care, where an infant was left unsupervised for 45 minutes. In another case, parents co-slept with their 3-week-old baby in a bed filled with a Podster, bedding, and pillows — again, disregarding Leachco’s explicit warnings and instructions.
Pacific Legal Foundation lays out just how arbitrary the recall is on its website. It explains, “Even if you adopt the CPSC’s outlandish reasoning, its pursuit of Leachco still doesn’t make sense. Tragically, between 1,000 and 3,500 infants die in their sleep each year — even in products that the Commission promotes for a ‘safe-sleep’ environment. Compare that to the Podster: If each of the 180,000 Podsters ever sold was used just once (an unreasonably low estimate), the injury rate the Commission links to the Podster is 0.0017% — less than two one-thousandths of a percent. A realistic estimate — hundreds of uses per Podster — reduces that rate to near-zero.”
Yet, the CPSC blamed Leachco, arguing that the Podster is defective simply because it is “reasonably foreseeable” that some caregivers might ignore the warnings and act irresponsibly.
Consumers can ignore the warnings on any product. According to this logic, could every car be taken off the roads if someone died without wearing their seatbelt and drove well beyond the speed limit?
There is no limiting factor on how far the CPSC could take its power, and no American company or product could be marked safe from what it calls its “voluntary” recall process.
Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the recall is that it was overturned by the agency’s own administrative law judge, and yet, it was allowed to go on. The judge deemed the recall as “questionable,” ruling that the commission had failed to prove the product was defective. Despite that ruling, it was appealed by the commission’s board to itself. This self-appeal process, commonly used in agency adjudication proceedings, virtually guarantees that the recall will be allowed to proceed.
Jamie Leach told the Washington Examiner, “The most egregious aspect of our case is we prevailed within the CPSC’s own in-house tribunal by the presiding judge, and even still, the nightmare is not over. The CPSC has appealed the judge’s decision, which was in our favor, and now they will have the ability to decide for themselves how the law should be applied.”
The commission’s case against Leachco was not only baseless but also prosecuted in its own in-house “court.” Instead of a federal courtroom with a jury, the trial took place at the commission’s offices in Bethesda, Maryland, in what the lawyers for PLF described as a bunker. The administrative law judge applied the commission’s own procedural and evidentiary rules rather than the standards used in federal court. Even more troubling, if the commission’s enforcement lawyers lose, they can appeal the decision to the commission itself, which is what ended up happening.
Now, Leachco faces an appellate “court” consisting of the very CPSC commissioners who originally voted to bring the case against it. PLF contends, “This in-house process violates the ancient legal principle that a party can’t be a judge in its own case.” The commission’s ability to review and rule on its enforcement actions undermines neutrality and due process.
As the administrative process continued, Leachco filed a federal lawsuit challenging the CPSC’s authority, citing constitutional flaws in both the agency’s structure and its proceedings. However, the courts permitted the CPSC’s overreach to persist, and in January 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Despite this setback, PLF will continue defending Leachco in the CPSC’s administrative action and, if necessary, through the appeals process.
The CPSC commissioners hold significant power as major executive branch agency leaders. Yet the president, the head of the executive branch, can only remove a commissioner for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” and for no other reason. While this might seem minor, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the president’s ability to remove high-ranking officials is essential for ensuring accountability. This is particularly critical given that the commissioners wield substantial authority but are not elected by the public. For proper democratic accountability, the president, who is elected by and answerable to the people, must have the unrestricted power to remove CPSC commissioners at will.
NETFLIX THROWS MEGHAN MARKLE UNDER THE DOUBLE-DECKER BUS
The tale of Leachco’s battle against the CPSC doesn’t just explain why fewer quality products exist on the shelves in the baby department. It is a frightening example of the extreme overreach of an unrestrained bureaucratic agency. Jamie Leach told the Washington Examiner, “My entire ordeal shows how pervasive, un-American, and dangerous this administrative state is if left unchecked. No one is safe or immune from the power of these administrative agencies. If they can come for me, they can come for anyone.” For every company such as Leachco, which has fought back against the agency’s so-called “voluntary” recall, one has to wonder how many more just succumbed, and how many more decided never to enter the baby product market in the first place.
Leachco’s situation highlights the risks posed by unelected officials who can wield unchecked power to go after businesses without facing any real accountability. The victims aren’t just companies and individuals. This phantom and unaccountable administrative state strikes at the heart of what it means to be an American innovator and business.
Bethany Mandel (@bethanyshondark) is a homeschooling mother of six and a writer. She is the bestselling co-author of Stolen Youth.