What happens when a federal agency publicly declares a product unsafe—but can't adequately explain the evidence behind that declaration?

NCLA has secured an important ruling for Dreamland Baby Company in its challenge to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

On this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth is joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Kara McKenna Rollins to discuss the latest decision in Dreamland Baby Company v. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Dreamland makes weighted infant sleep products. CPSC publicly warned consumers against using such products, a declaration with potentially devastating consequences for a company selling products for babies. Dreamland challenged the agency, arguing that its statements were inaccurate and misleading and weren't supported by the available data.

The agency fought to prevent judicial review of its action. The court rejected that position. And when it examined what CPSC had actually considered, it found the record insufficient to evaluate the agency's decision and sent the matter back to CPSC for further consideration.

Mark and Kara discuss what the ruling means for Dreamland, why agencies shouldn't be able to sidestep statutory procedures through public warnings, and why government safety pronouncements should be grounded in transparent evidence and data.