This comparison covers 3 official alert references, including lamp and clock, desk lamp, lava lamp, published from 2007-08-03 to 2008-07-04. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about stability/load. 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.
Lamp and Clock · 0718/08
Report published 2008-07-04 · notifying country Romania · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Desk lamp with a clock, maximum height 240mm (with lampshade), minimum height 170mm (without lampshade). The lampshade is made from PVC with thickness of 2mm. The product is packed in a cardboard box. [1]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a risk of electric shock because: - the ceramic clamp that contains the pewter conductors can easily rotate causing the conductors to twist and be damaged,- the supply cord does not include an earth protection conductor.In addition, the lamp is unstable as its base surface is too small in relation to the entire structure of the lamp.This product does not comply with the relevant European standard EN 60335. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Sales ban ordered by the authorities.Press release has been issued.Date of entry into force: Unknown [1]
Report published 2008-06-13 · notifying country Romania · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
The lamp is 170 mm high but could increase to a height of 380 mm by extending the cord linking the lampshade and its support/base. The product is packed in a cardboard box. The lampshade is made of a thin steel plate, 1 mm in depth and of blue or pink colour. The lamp's support is plastic and can be used as a clamp to fix the lamp to a desk/table. [2]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a risk of electric shock because:- the ceramic clamp contains conductors which can easily rotate, twist and be detached resulting in a short circuit,- the lamp is unstable, the base is too small in respect to the entire structure of the lamp.The product does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European standard EN 60598. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market ordered by the authorities.Date of entry into force: Unknown [2]
Report published 2007-08-03 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin Austria
Reported product description
The portable luminaire illuminates the glass placed on the base part and filled with approximately 4 dl liquid and thermoplastic substance with the luminescent lamp, which is placed in the silver plastic base part. An E 14-capped reflector lamp is supplied with the luminaire, its inscription: “230V 30W”. Main parts of the luminaire: lamp holder with inscriptions: "NK18 T210 VDE CE"; switch inserted into the cable with inscription: "Patent 99332137.2 99238813.9 KETI 303 2/250~ CE" +marks of approval; plug with inscription: "TOONG YEAN TY-011 2.5A 250V~" + marks of approval. Technical specifications: 230V; max 30W; Class II; F-mark, E 14 lamp holder. [3]
Reported risk explanation
This product poses a serious risk of:- electric shock because the nipple is not locked thus the lampholder can rotate and live parts become available; – injuries because the stability of the product is not satisfactory thus it can tip over and cause injury. The product does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European standard EN 60598. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market and recall from consumers ordered by the authoritiesDate of entry into force: Unknown [3]
3 distinct official alert references, published between 2007-08-03 and 2008-07-04. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2007
1
2008
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: 2 recorded references
Electric shock, Injuries: 1 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.
3 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.
Stability and load-bearing use — what evidence do we have?
Identify the intended loads, support/attachment design, adjustment positions and use surface. Compare the reported collapse or instability mechanism with the actual configuration and agree a supported investigation rather than copying another case’s response.
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.
