June 24, 2026|Product Liability Insider
By Anne Marie Ellis, June 24, 2026
On June 22, 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) approved publication of a proposed mandatory safety rule governing lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility products.
Why This Matters
The proposal is driven by well-documented hazards—thermal runaway, fires, and explosions—that have resulted in fatalities, injuries, and significant property loss.
CPSC staff has specifically tied these risks to gaps in compliance with existing safety benchmarks, noting that the proposed rule is intended to address the “unreasonable risk of death and injury” associated with lithium-ion battery systems in e-bikes, scooters, and similar devices.
The Role of UL Standards
The proposed rule builds directly on existing UL consensus standards, which the CPSC is now looking to incorporate—likely with modifications—into a mandatory framework:
- UL 2272 – Electrical systems for personal e-mobility devices (e.g., hoverboards, e-scooters)
- UL 2849 – Electrical systems for e-bikes
- UL 2271 – Lithium-ion batteries used in light electric vehicle applications
These standards impose construction and performance requirements designed to reduce fire and shock risks across battery systems, chargers, and integrated electrical components. Notably, UL 2272 takes a system-level approach, evaluating how batteries, chargers, and electronics interact—an area where failures frequently lead to thermal events.
The CPSC has already made clear that noncompliance with these standards may constitute a “substantial product hazard” under the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. § 2064).
Enforcement Trends: Recalls, Warnings, and Supplier Resistance
Recent enforcement activity underscores that lithium-ion battery risks are not theoretical:
- CPSC Warning – Rad Power Bikes (2025):
The agency urged consumers to stop using certain lithium-ion batteries after 31 reported fires, including incidents occurring during storage.
Notably, the importer reportedly refused to agree to an acceptable recall, limiting remedial options. - E-Bike Battery Recalls (2025):
A recall of approximately 24,000 batteries followed multiple overheating incidents, including reported fires. - CPSC Safety Warnings Without Recall Cooperation (2026):
The agency has issued “stop use” warnings where companies allegedly failed to cooperate, including cases involving fires, burn injuries, and property damage tied to lithium-ion battery systems. - Fire Incident Data Driving Regulation:
CPSC has identified dozens of deaths and injuries associated with micromobility battery incidents in recent years, reinforcing the agency’s move toward mandatory standards.
These examples highlight a consistent pattern: software, battery management, and component integration failures—not just isolated battery defects—are driving enforcement risk.
Supply Chain Focus (and Risk Allocation)
The Commission has also emphasized persistent quality issues tied to imported products, signaling a continued enforcement focus on:
- Battery pack sourcing and certification
- Aftermarket or replacement batteries
- Charger compatibility and system integration
Given the prevalence of imports, companies should expect increasing scrutiny of supplier due diligence and certification claims—including potential exposure for false or unsupported UL labeling.
Practical Takeaways
Even before a final rule is issued, companies should be acting now:
- Validate UL certification (2272/2849/2271) at the component and system level
- Audit supplier documentation and test reports (not just certificates)
- Evaluate aftermarket battery and charger compatibility risks
- Pressure-test recall readiness—especially where upstream suppliers may not cooperate
- Review representations regarding UL compliance to mitigate mislabeling exposure
Bottom Line
The CPSC is no longer simply encouraging compliance with UL standards—it is moving to codify them into enforceable law.
For manufacturers, importers, and distributors, the risk profile is shifting quickly:
what was once a “best practice” is becoming a regulatory baseline—and a litigation exposure trigger.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
