This comparison covers 2 official alert references, including lighting equipment, published from 2005-02-18 to 2006-08-04. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about labels/instructions, plug interfaces, earthing. 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 · 0468/06
Report published 2006-08-04 · notifying country United Kingdom · reported origin People's Republic of China
The product has inadequate protection against electric shock, including the following non-compliances with the relevant laws and standards:- the luminaire is fitted with a brass lampholder and has no means for earthing the accessible metal parts. Where the sheath of the supply cord has been removed to facilitate the conductors’ connection to their terminals, this has left the exposed basic insulation on the conductors in contact with the metal lampholder. The lampholder would become live in the event of a failure of the insulation.- the brass lampholder would become live in the event of an insulation fault within the lamp.- there are no precautions to prevent the lampholder from becoming live due to a detached wire.The plug and the fuse do not meet the safety requirements including:- the cover screw had not been provided with a means for retention and it fell out when the plug was opened. A lost screw can be replaced with an inappropriate type leaving the cover inadequately fixed.- the terminal screws have not been rounded at the ends to minimise damage to the conductors when tightening.- the endcaps of the fuse were insecurely fixed and the length of the fuse was shorter than required.In addition, the user instructions are inadequate and the product does not meet the marking requirements, including the maximum rated wattage and the symbol for class II construction. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Sales ban and withdrawal from the market ordered by the authority. Date of entry into force: Unknown [1]
Report published 2005-02-18 · notifying country United Kingdom · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Electric decorative aquarium lamp “Leboss - Magma Lamp – Aquarium Style”, incorporating a mobile phone. [2]
Reported risk explanation
Risk of electric shock. Presence of ineffective earth connection; unsafe wires connection; insufficient wires section; accessible live parts; incompliant plug; missing instructions and safety information. The product does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European and UK standards. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Product seized by the authorities.Date of entry into force: Unknown [2]
2 distinct official alert references, published between 2005-02-18 and 2006-08-04. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2005
1
2006
1
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: 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.
Protective-earth and exposed-part configuration — what evidence do we have?
Record the actual protection design, earth connections or pin configuration and accessible conductive parts, if relevant. Compare the precise reported configuration concern with your drawings and assembly controls. An inadequately insulated earth pin does not by itself establish a failed earth connection; a word match cannot determine protection class or test scope.
Useful evidence: Protection/connection and pin drawings, insulation/component ratings, assembly checks and relevant existing electrical evidence.
Plug, socket and connector interfaces — what evidence do we have?
Identify the exact plug/socket or connector configuration, intended country interface and any adapter supplied. Document the interface dimensions, accessible parts and assembly controls for specialist review against current applicable requirements. Do not assume a reported interface failure applies to every configuration.
Labels, instructions and actual use — what evidence do we have?
Capture the exact label/instruction revision and destination/use context. Compare the information gap described in the report with your own product and current sector requirements, keeping a reported defect separate from a universal wording obligation.
Useful evidence: Current labels/instructions, revision and market/translation records, use/risk information and reviewed applicable requirements.
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.
