OverUnder1980
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2025
- Messages
- 1
For US based online stores, there should be a requirement for the MFG to provide documentation proving it passed UL / CPSC testing before they can sell it through the online store.
Without naming a specific online store, there have been several times where an inherently hazardous design that simply shouldn’t have ever been available to begin with (double male “extension” cords for generators come to mind) still became available via a US-based online store – a site that also carries branded products sold at local stores, that DO comply with UL / CPSC regulations.
Although the idea of a double male cord for high voltage circuits does raise enough red flags for smarter people to simply avoid it, there are other things that don’t appear to violate any common sense for electrical safety, because the design flaws are not visible to the end user.
For example, a phone charger with no name brand on it (or a nonsensical one, like my own made up ghoibfh brand) doesn’t look inherently dangerous, and if it does successfully charge the phone, the user will be none the wiser- until it fails shorted and causes a fire, because it didn’t have a main input fuse to prevent a fire from starting in the event of a short circuit. Or, the USB cable becomes live with 120V because the transformer wasn’t made properly with enough isolation and the insulation was breached when a power surge occurred, which an adapter that passes UL / CPSC testing would not – because the regulations require that the adapter is designed to be safe in the event of a realistic failure mode.
As a secondary workaround if the MFG itself balks on the idea of providing safety info (because they don’t have it, ghoibfh couldn’t be arsed to do any testing!) the online store can only sell it, if they have samples of the product in question tested in the US by UL / CPSC, before they sell it. And they must repeat the test if the overseas MFG decides to change the brand name, to sell the “new” brand name.
Plenty of things are made overseas that comply with UL / CPSC safety tests, and those are the ones with real brand names on them. But when an MFG operating under a “front” of a made-up name like ghoibfh wants to sell a phone charger, the store has to either obtain documentation that it passed safety test (and have it on record) in order to sell it, or they have to deal with the testing themselves and prove that it passed, before they can sell it.
That way, a “real” MFG like Samsung or Belkin or Fisher Price won’t have any trouble proving what they’ve already done, but ghoibfh would be unable to sell something to the US *through US based online stores, including indirectly via “third party sellers” on sites bearing that function* until and unless either ghoibfh themselves or the store, gets a passing safety test result.
That doesn’t mean that a poorly made, cheap product couldn’t be sold, but that’s not the problem that my hypothetical regulation would solve. It would target *unsafe* products and essentially force a US-based online retailer (including a middleman that has third party sellers alongside their own products) to prove that the product is safe. A company that already tested their stuff for safety and has documentation proving it, wouldn’t have any trouble providing a copy of said documents. But if Online Bargain Electronics gets a request from ghoibfh to be a third party seller, they’d have to ask about safety testing. If ghoibfh was just trying to make a fast buck, chances are, they’ll either give a canned reply with no document, not respond at all, or take down their online presence and replace it with another fake name like mduteaff or something of that nature.
Without naming a specific online store, there have been several times where an inherently hazardous design that simply shouldn’t have ever been available to begin with (double male “extension” cords for generators come to mind) still became available via a US-based online store – a site that also carries branded products sold at local stores, that DO comply with UL / CPSC regulations.
Although the idea of a double male cord for high voltage circuits does raise enough red flags for smarter people to simply avoid it, there are other things that don’t appear to violate any common sense for electrical safety, because the design flaws are not visible to the end user.
For example, a phone charger with no name brand on it (or a nonsensical one, like my own made up ghoibfh brand) doesn’t look inherently dangerous, and if it does successfully charge the phone, the user will be none the wiser- until it fails shorted and causes a fire, because it didn’t have a main input fuse to prevent a fire from starting in the event of a short circuit. Or, the USB cable becomes live with 120V because the transformer wasn’t made properly with enough isolation and the insulation was breached when a power surge occurred, which an adapter that passes UL / CPSC testing would not – because the regulations require that the adapter is designed to be safe in the event of a realistic failure mode.
As a secondary workaround if the MFG itself balks on the idea of providing safety info (because they don’t have it, ghoibfh couldn’t be arsed to do any testing!) the online store can only sell it, if they have samples of the product in question tested in the US by UL / CPSC, before they sell it. And they must repeat the test if the overseas MFG decides to change the brand name, to sell the “new” brand name.
Plenty of things are made overseas that comply with UL / CPSC safety tests, and those are the ones with real brand names on them. But when an MFG operating under a “front” of a made-up name like ghoibfh wants to sell a phone charger, the store has to either obtain documentation that it passed safety test (and have it on record) in order to sell it, or they have to deal with the testing themselves and prove that it passed, before they can sell it.
That way, a “real” MFG like Samsung or Belkin or Fisher Price won’t have any trouble proving what they’ve already done, but ghoibfh would be unable to sell something to the US *through US based online stores, including indirectly via “third party sellers” on sites bearing that function* until and unless either ghoibfh themselves or the store, gets a passing safety test result.
That doesn’t mean that a poorly made, cheap product couldn’t be sold, but that’s not the problem that my hypothetical regulation would solve. It would target *unsafe* products and essentially force a US-based online retailer (including a middleman that has third party sellers alongside their own products) to prove that the product is safe. A company that already tested their stuff for safety and has documentation proving it, wouldn’t have any trouble providing a copy of said documents. But if Online Bargain Electronics gets a request from ghoibfh to be a third party seller, they’d have to ask about safety testing. If ghoibfh was just trying to make a fast buck, chances are, they’ll either give a canned reply with no document, not respond at all, or take down their online presence and replace it with another fake name like mduteaff or something of that nature.
