The acquired cohort contains 5 official alert references published from 2005-06-03 to 2026-04-10. This page compares 4 selected, distinct product descriptions, including wall lamp, desk lamp, children's night light. The other 1 records still contribute to the cohort counts but are not displayed: descriptions may repeat, lack the display inputs, or fall outside the eight-description display limit. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about insulation, 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.
Wall lamp · SR/00983/26
Report published 2026-04-10 · notifying country The Netherlands · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Wi-Fi LED lamp with black metal housing. Product sold online, in particular via letsleds.nl. [1]
Reported risk explanation
Due to insufficient insulation and electric strength, in combination with the absence of the earth connection, the metal lamp housing may become live. Moreover, due to the absence of a cord anchorage, the wires may become subject to mechanical tension. The wires may become loose and can come into contact with among others the metal parts of the lamp, causing the metal parts to become live. The user could therefore touch accessible live parts, which may cause an electric shock. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Radio Equipment Directive nor with the European standards EN 60598-1 and EN 60598-2. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 19/02/2026Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 19/02/2026 [1]
Report published 2020-11-20 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Silver, portable desk lamp with fluorescent tube (1x20 W). The product was sold online. [2]
Reported risk explanation
The cables inside the mains power cord are too thin and could overheat during use increasing the risk of fire and burns.During the insertion or re-insertion of the tube live parts are accessible. The insulation is inadequate. The wires and insulation material can be damaged by contact with sharp-edged metal parts. The basic insulated conductor parts come into contact with the accessible, unearthed metal parts. As a consequence, accessible parts could become live, and the user receive an electric shock. The product does not comply with the requirements of 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: DistributorCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 28/09/2020Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: DistributorCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 28/09/2020 [2]
Report published 2018-09-28 · notifying country Malta · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
A night light with cartoon characters on its shade. [3]
Reported risk explanation
The light lacks a SELV (safety extra-low voltage) device and an earth connection and the insulation is inadequate. As a consequence, 240V from the mains are supplied to the product and live parts are accessible. The device could be connected to the mains supply without an earth connection, leading to an electric shock.The product does not comply with the requirements of the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European standard EN 60598. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): RetailerCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 18/09/2018 [3]
Report published 2005-06-03 · notifying country Germany · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
Aquarium lamp “DYMAX - Aquarium lamp” with aluminium body and white and blue lights (OB). [4]
Reported risk explanation
Risk of electric shock. Water can easily penetrate the lamp; absence of earth connection; insufficient insulation; insufficient wires cross section; missing cable fixation. The lamp does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European standards. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from distribution ordered by the authoritiesDate of entry into force: Unknown [4]
5 distinct official alert references, published between 2005-06-03 and 2026-04-10. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2005
1
2016
1
2018
1
2020
1
2026
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.
Burns, Electric shock, Fire: 1 recorded references
Electric shock: 4 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.
4 distinct descriptions displayed; 1 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.
Power-supply insulation boundaries — what evidence do we have?
If your product uses a mains supply or adapter, identify the actual power-supply architecture, insulation boundaries and accessible parts. Ask a qualified specialist which design evidence and investigation would address the reported shock mechanism for this configuration. No medical-device standard or pass/fail limit is selected from this alert.
Useful evidence: Schematics, adapter/component specifications, ratings, insulation/protection design and configuration-specific existing test evidence.
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.
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.
