This comparison covers 2 official alert references, including lighting chains, published from 2006-02-10 to 2006-10-06. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about ignition/materials. Compare the product features and dated findings below before scoping an investigation. These historical observations do not determine your product’s compliance or a market failure rate.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Dated official observations
Compare the product features and reported failure mechanism
The source wording below describes the reported case at that time. Read each complete report before using it in an investigation.
Product label not stated · 0625/06
Report published 2006-10-06 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Lighting chain (CEDAR). 1) 160 plug-in type miniature incandescent lamps and 8-function flashing unit, 2) 240 plug-in type miniature incandescent lamps and 8-function flashing unit.Description: Products consist of 160/240 series parallel connected non-replaceable incandescent lamps with resistor bridge. The flashing unit controls 4 parallel-connected circuits for flashing the plug-in type light sources. Main parts: bipolar plug with inscription: CH 2.5 A 250 V~ TS-01 VDE; flashing unit with inscriptions: FLASHER CONTROL UNIT 220V AC 50HZ 0.83A PRESS + names of functions. Technical specifications: 230V; 50Hz; 5 V; 0,13 mA; 104 W/125W; by appearance Class II, IP20. [1]
Reported risk explanation
The products pose a risk of:<b>+ electric shock because</b>:- the insulation of the wires does not meet the requirements;- the PVC insulated wires are not suitable for outdoor use;- the flashing unit and the lamp holders are not protected against ingress of water; - the cross section area of the wires is less than required;- the wire inlets of the flashing unit are sharp so the wires can get damaged; - the wires are not fixed against loosening. <b>+ fire because</b>:- the power input is too high (126 W instead of the required 50W);- the resistance of the plastic parts of the lamp holders to ignition is not sufficient.The products do not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant standard EN 60598. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Sales ban ordered by the authority.Date of entry into force: Unknown [1]
Report published 2006-02-10 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
Lighting chains "60 Netstarlights". Consists of 160 series connected replaceable SELV incandescent lamps with resistor bridge and an 8-function flashing unit. Technical parameters: 220V, Class II by appearance. Type/model: Unknown. [2]
Reported risk explanation
The indication of "INDOOR-OUTDOOR USE" is misleading because the product is not protected against ingress of water. The cross section area of the conductor of the single insulated flexible wire applied between the flashing unit and the lamp holders is less than required. The inlet of the flashing unit is not rounded, thus the cable may get damaged. The cord anchorage is missing.Since the power consumption (124W) was significantly higher than allowed (50W) and the lamp holders do not have sufficient resistance to ignition the product may cause fire. This product is not identical with the types and models described on the label (the indicated power consumption significantly differs from the measured values (124W), the light sources and their parameters are also different). This product does not comply with the LVD Directive and the European Standards. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market and recall ordered by authority.Date of entry into force: Unknown [2]
2 distinct official alert references, published between 2006-02-10 and 2006-10-06. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2006
2
Recorded risk labels within this evidence task
Label combinations are source facts within one comparison; they do not create separate guides with identical preparation tasks.
Electric shock, Fire: 2 recorded references
Source selection, exclusions and calculation method
Filter the acquired, completely parsed English weekly XML releases. Deduplicate official alert references. Group by product category and the complete set of conditional evidence-question topics supported by actual risk text. Risk-label combinations remain recorded cohort facets and do not create buyer intents. Brand, product name, model, origin, notifying country, measurement-only changes and different wording of the same questions do not create intents. Unrecognized mechanisms stay internal for enrichment. Count report years and notifying countries deterministically. Display at most eight newest descriptions with at least 40 characters after whitespace normalization, nonempty reported measures and distinct casefolded descriptions; break date ties by official identifier. All cohort records count even if their description is shorter or not displayed. This is not a representative sample. Counts concern this acquired corpus only.
One acquired version per official public alert reference. Display at most eight newest distinct product descriptions whose normalized whitespace-collapsed text contains at least 40 characters and has nonempty reported measures; ties sort by official identifier. The complete cohort includes shorter descriptions. This is an explicit display selection, not a representative sample.
2 distinct descriptions displayed; 0 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {}.
These are selected, dated enforcement observations in the acquired weekly reports, not a random market sample, market-wide failure rate, proof of current product status, or a determination about your product. Notification country is not a complete sales-market or jurisdiction-coverage field. A quoted legal/standard reference is the report’s statement, not independently verified current law or a mandatory test panel.
Calculation safety-gate-evidence-comparison-10; units recorded alerts; no incidence denominator.
Turn the reported failure mechanism into a scoped investigation
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Material, ignition and use context — what evidence do we have?
Identify the relevant material/component and exposure to the reported ignition mechanism. Document product configuration and intended use before agreeing justified methods and criteria. The recorded fire concern does not select a complete mandatory test panel.
Can we trace the affected component, formula or design revision across our supplied products?
Compare the reported descriptions with your own identifiers and change records. Treat missing or “Unknown” source fields as unresolved; they do not establish that no action was needed.
Useful evidence: Product identifiers, revision history, supplier/batch traceability and market/operator records.
Who would own an evidence review and any resulting corrective-action decision?
Read the reported measures as historical observations. Establish your own operator roles, sector-specific rules, decision owner and communication responsibilities before adopting another case’s response.
Conditional: Product-risk evidence and operator-role review — Compare the recorded product features and failure mechanism with your product. Confirm the applicable product regime, deciding evidence, operator responsibilities and justified next steps. This does not assume that GPSR or a representative appointment applies to every alert category.
Questions for providers
Which specific product features and reported risk mechanism make these cases relevant or irrelevant to our product?
What current legal, standards or scientific sources support your proposed investigation criteria, and what cannot be concluded from these dated alerts?
Which existing evidence can answer the risk question, what additional work is justified, and who owns any resulting corrective-action decision?
Sources and data dates
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
