��������

On December 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), in coordination with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),  that it filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (Black & Decker). The complaint alleges that Black & Decker failed to immediately report information that its DeWalt utility bars and miter saws contained possible defects that could create substantial product hazards and/or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, as required by Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The CPSA imposes, with certain exceptions, an obligation on manufacturers, importers, and distributors to immediately report such information to the CPSC, underscoring the importance of timely disclosure to protect consumers from potential harm. The complaint seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief.

This enforcement action follows significant structural changes at the DOJ, including the dissolution of the Consumer Protection Branch (CPB) and reassignment of all CPB personnel to other divisions as of September 30, 2025. Shortly before that deadline, the DOJ  the creation of the Enforcement & Affirmative Litigation Branch (EALB) that now consolidates litigation related to “Americans’ health, safety, economic security, and data privacy” into two sections. First, the Enforcement Section assumes most of the CPB’s former responsibilities, such as the pursuit of affirmative litigation under the CPSA and other consumer protection statutes. Second, the Affirmative Litigation Section focuses on filing lawsuits against states, municipalities, and private entities that interfere with or obstruct federal policies. 

With the filing of this new action against Black & Decker, the Enforcement Section of the EALB makes clear that it will pick up where the CPB left off and continue to work with the CPSC to pursue purported violations of the CPSA.

The CPSC and DOJ 

For decades, the DOJ’s CPB worked with the CPSC to pursue violators of the CPSA. The CPSC has authority to impose civil penalties and exercise independent regulatory powers under the CPSA. However, it largely relies on the DOJ to enforce these powers in federal court when purported violators refuse to accept the CPSC’s directives. Beyond litigation, the CPB coordinated across agencies and enforcement fronts, working closely with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and federal agencies to align investigative strategies, manage subpoenas and evidence, and ensure consistent nationwide enforcement. Now, the EALB will take up this work on behalf of the DOJ—as illustrated by this most recent lawsuit filed against Black & Decker.

The DOJ filed the Black & Decker lawsuit just months after announcing the formation of the EALB. In that announcement, the DOJ further emphasized its intent to use this new branch to continue “” aimed at protecting public health and safety.

For companies regulated by the CPSC, this reorganization does not change the requirements under the CPSA, the substance of the CPSC’s jurisdiction, or the scope of the CPSC and DOJ’s enforcement powers. The CPSA still authorizes the CPSC to recall products, conduct investigations, and impose civil penalties. Further, the DOJ continues to have authority under the CPSA to initiate actions in federal court on behalf of the United States, seeking injunctions and penalties for violations. The most notable change, at this juncture, primarily concerns which division within the DOJ will now handle this class of consumer-related cases. Going forward, any federal lawsuit to enforce a recall, impose a civil penalty, or prosecute a violation of the CPSA will now be brought by the EALB’s Enforcement Section.  It remains to be seen whether the new Enforcement Section will adopt a different approach from that of the CPB in handling such enforcement actions.

For instance, questions remain regarding the EALB’s approach to voluntary self-disclosures. In March of 2023, the CPB announced a new voluntary self-disclosure policy (“VSD policy”) that encouraged companies to self-report potential violations of federal criminal law directly to CPB to avail themselves of full cooperation credit. The DOJ maintains the VSD policies of all its components and offices that prosecute corporate crime on its website. Now, the policy for CPB is no longer available on the DOJ’s website and has not been replaced with a new EALB policy. Therefore, it is unclear how the EALB will approach VSDs when enforcing criminal laws and other regulatory violations traditionally handled by CPB.

Key Takeaways

As discussed, the EALB is likely to continue the CPB’s consumer-safety enforcement work—albeit with some slight growing pains. While the EALB assumes most of the CPB’s former responsibilities, its mandate appears broader, covering not only consumer safety but also litigation tied to health, economic security, and data privacy. The EALB’s stated purpose further appears to have broader policy implications, such as protecting consumers from “.” Whereas its predecessor CPB appeared to follow a more rigid enforcement framework, largely at the direction and recommendation of its partnering agencies like the CPSC. This expansion of scope may not be matched by a proportional increase in personnel, as reports indicate many former CPB attorneys were reassigned rather than new hires being added. This dynamic could create resource constraints and operational challenges, particularly as the Enforcement Section balances traditional CPSA enforcement with its new, wider portfolio. 

Further, some CPB attorneys whose work focused on criminal enforcement have  to the DOJ’s Criminal Division, while others stayed in the Civil Division’s new branch. Alongside the Civil Division’s restructuring, the DOJ recently  the creation of a possible EALB counterpart within its Criminal Division—coined the “Health & Safety Unit”—which will assume criminal enforcement of the CPSA and other, similar public health and safety statutes. This new division answers any lingering questions regarding the EALB, and whether it will maintain criminal prosecutions for violations of the CPSA. Together, these developments signal a clear bifurcation of civil and criminal enforcement responsibilities under the CPSA and related statutes. While the EALB faces the challenge of managing an expanded civil mandate with limited resources, the DOJ’s Health & Safety Unit ensures continuity and focus on criminal prosecutions, creating a more specialized, albeit more fragmented, enforcement landscape.

Ultimately, the DOJ reorganization is unlikely to materially change its overarching enforcement practices of the CPSA, even if individual enforcement strategies may change. Companies should assume that EALB will pursue alleged offenders aggressively, especially in cases involving willful misconduct or repeat offenders. To avoid scrutiny from the CPSC, and potential escalation to the DOJ, companies that manufacture, import, distribute, and/or sell consumer products should:

• Revisit Safety and Compliance Programs. Treat the CPSA and related CPSC rules as high priorities. Update internal compliance manuals to reflect any new standards. Make sure testing and certification processes (e.g., lead or flammability testing) are documented. If your products rely on voluntary standards or third-party certifications, periodically audit suppliers.
• Communicate Proactively. If a company becomes aware of a consumer product that creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death or a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, it should notify the CPSC promptly and work cooperatively to develop corrective action if needed. When convinced that a product safety issue exists, prioritize voluntary recalls and remedies. Companies with strong recall and crisis plans generally fare better in enforcement situations.
• Monitor Enforcement Trends. Stay apprised of new DOJ enforcement actions and CPSC recalls to gauge priorities, such as child safety, batteries, flammability, and toxic materials. Recently, the DOJ highlighted its interest in pursuing matters related to allegedly unsafe imports and deceptive trade practices, suggesting companies should examine their supply chains and marketing practices for potential vulnerabilities.
• Engage Experienced Counsel. Given the structural shift at the DOJ, now more than ever, engaging experienced counsel familiar with the laws and regulations enforced by the CPSC and the inner workings of the DOJ can help companies to proactively reduce the risk of and reactively respond to any enforcement actions which may arise. Experienced regulatory counsel can help interface with the DOJ and the CPSC, negotiate consent orders if needed, and prepare any appeals. 

Foley’s multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional team is prepared to help the consumer product industry accomplish their legal and business goals with respect to CPSC compliance and responding to enforcement actions. To discuss how ��������; Lardner’s Consumer Product team can help, contact Erik Swanholt ([email protected]), Kristin McGaver Sikora ([email protected]), Jack Korba ([email protected]), Megan Chester ([email protected]), or Mikeala Mitcham ([email protected]).