Baby sleep sack maker sues US for $90 million over safety remarks
California-based Dreamland Baby said in its lawsuit, opens new tab in the federal court in Santa Ana that its business suffered dramatically after a former member of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission last year made misleading claims that the agency found weighted sleep products to pose dangers to infants.
Dreamland said the agency voted against regulating weighted sleep sacks or issuing safety standards for them in 2023. But it said then-commissioner Richard Trumka Jr still 'elected to take matters into his own hands' in a rogue public campaign against Dreamland.
'While Dreamland may never fully recover from what has occurred, this action seeks to repair some of these wrongs,' Dreamland's attorneys at law firm Boies Schiller Flexner said in the lawsuit.
The company said it was in 'financial and reputational peril.'
Trumka, who is not a defendant, could not be immediately reached for comment. The product safety commission referred a request for comment to the U.S. Justice Department, which declined to comment.
Dreamland had no immediate comment.
The lawsuit marks an escalation of a court battle between Dreamland and the federal government that began last year.
Dreamland in November sued, opens new tab Trumka, the product safety commission and other defendants in federal court in Washington, seeking a court order to stop what it called "baseless and unlawful attacks on weighted infant sleep products."
Dreamland's sleep sacks, developed in 2019, are sown with polypropylene beads that add weight and, according to the company, place gentle pressure on infants that helps soothe them for better sleep.
Dreamland said it was driving millions of dollars in sales annually until last year.
Trumka in a statement, opens new tab on the product safety agency's website last year urged retailers to stop sales of weighted blankets and swaddles for babies.
He cited what he said were warnings from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The new lawsuit said that no formal product safety determination has been made regarding Dreamland's products.
The case is Dreamland Baby Co v. United States, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 8:25-cv-01798.
For Dreamland: Matthew Schwartz and Dan Boyle of Boies Schiller Flexner
For United States: No appearance yet
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Trump's strongman capitalism risks killing American enterprise
If it actually happens, no doubt the president will describe it as 'the deal of the century'. The United States government is reported to be examining buying a major stake in the microchip manufacturer Intel. It is part of a growing trend of the Trump administration becoming more and more involved in the running of the giants of American industry, with the state taking a share of Nvidia's revenues in return for export licenses to China, meddling in the management of Eli Lilly and Coca-Cola and drawing up a spreadsheet of 'pro' and 'anti' businesses in the White House. We can all understand what Donald Trump is getting at. He wants to make America more competitive and doesn't mind rolling up his sleeves to make it happen. The trouble is, state interference in business always goes horribly wrong – and in reality Trump's version of strongman capitalism will be the death of American enterprise. It was, at least, good news for Intel's long-suffering shareholders. The shares spiked by 7pc on Thursday as news leaked that the White House was looking at taking a direct stake in the business. After all, the share price has fallen by 50pc over the last five years, and after setbacks in all its major markets it was a sign that the company might soon have the full financial muscle of the US treasury behind it. We don't know yet how much it might pay for the shares, or how many it will buy, but following a meeting between Trump and Intel's chief executive Lip-Bu Tan some kind of deal looks likely. That is part of a growing trend. In his second term, Trump has not just been imposing tariffs, often haphazardly, on the rest of the world. He has been involving himself directly in the management of some of America's biggest companies. Earlier this month, the chip giants Nvidia and AMD agreed to pay 15pc of their Chinese revenues to the US government in exchange for permission to export to its main rival. Last month Coca-Cola agreed to replace corn syrup with cane sugar as a sweetener in its fizzy drink at the suggestion of the president. Eli Lilly is increasing the price of its diet injection Mounjaro after Trump complained that the 'fat drug' was cheaper in London. The White House was reported to have categorised more than 500 companies and trade associations, according to whether they were for or against his 'big, beautiful bill' that set the budget, with the clear implication there would be favours for those on the right side of the ledger, and punishments for those on the wrong side. Meanwhile, last week Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, argued that the 'Japanese, European and Koreans will invest in companies and industries that we direct them to, largely at the president's discretion'. The list goes on and on. At this rate, Trump will soon be on the phone to Amazon's Jeff Bezos telling him who to choose as the next James Bond, and advising McDonald's what to put on the breakfast menu (more hash browns, presumably). He is rapidly turning himself into the chief executive of USA Inc. Sure, we can see what the president is getting at. If we take microchips as an example, Trump, like his predecessor Joe Biden, wants to bring manufacturing back onshore, and he wants to protect critical supply lines in what is clearly the most strategically important industry of the 21st century. No doubt he sees Intel as the best vehicle for making that happen. Likewise, he wants to beef up the competitiveness of American industry. If that means throwing the weight and muscle of the White House behind the country's industrial champions then he doesn't mind rolling up his sleeves and getting on with it. After all, French presidents do it all the time, so there is no reason why American ones should not as well. And in fairness, if you are going to have a president who meddles in the country's corporations, Trump is probably better at it than most. At least he knows how a company works. There are two big problems, however. First, whenever the state gets too heavily involved in the management of a company it always ends up going horribly wrong. The priorities change, the management loses focus, and the other shareholders are ignored. To take just one example, look at how poorly Air France has performed since Emmanuel Macron built up a 28pc stake in the airline: its shares, despite a recent rally, are down by 25pc over the last five years, while IAG, the owner of British Airways, is up by 188pc. It is hard to believe that Intel under partial state ownership competing against fully private rivals in the micro-processor industry will fare any better, and it may well end up being completely destroyed. More seriously, it looks scarily like the version of strongman capitalism that is practised in Viktor Orban's Hungary, or which has been tried countless times in South America. It starts with some well-intentioned support for corporate champions, and it might even do some good initially. But over time it turns into a system where big money and big politics are so intertwined that markets get distorted, cosy monopolies are allowed to flourish, and innovation and competition are crushed because it doesn't suit someone who has political favours to call in with the government. It is a rotten, deformed version of capitalism, and one that always ends in failure. Trump may or may not take a stake in Intel. We will find out in the next few weeks. He may start muscling in on the management of major American companies or he may not. Either way, the blunt truth is this. The South American-style system of state-dominated crony capitalism that Trump is developing will be the death of the tradition of free enterprise – one that has made the American economy the strongest in the world.
BBC News
7 hours ago
- BBC News
New Grantham £8m council depot 'taking shape' ahead of opening
A new £8.8m council depot is "taking shape" ahead of opening, an authority Kesteven District Council (SKDC) plans to take control of the depot in Turnpike Close, Grantham from contractor Lindum Group on 30 October, with a go-live date scheduled for 1 authority said it would accommodate a range of services including waste, park maintenance and street cleaning, along with more than 250 cabinet member for property and public engagement, Councillor Richard Cleaver, described the new depot as "future-proofed and sustainable". Clearance works have begun at the current depot in Alexandra Road, which was built in the 1970s and is at the end of its operational life, a spokesperson old depot will remain in operation until the handover has taken place and SKDC said it was continuing to assess options for the site's future completed so far includes the steel structures for the main depot building and external roof and external cladding are being added, and joinery work is scheduled in the next few authority said Lindum Group was working on the lorry parking area and work would start on the main car park said it had allocated £500,000 in addition to the build cost for mobilisation to relocate its services and staff from the existing said the new depot would "improve welfare and working conditions for our brilliant staff". Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here. Download the BBC News app from the App Store for iPhone and iPad or Google Play for Android devices
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump hiked tariffs on US imports. Now he's looking at exports – sparking fears of ‘dangerous precedent'
Apple CEO Tim Cook visited the White House bearing an unusual gift. 'This box was made in California,' Cook reassured his audience in the Oval Office this month, as he took off the lid. Inside was a glass plaque, engraved for its recipient, and a slab for the plaque to sit on. 'The base was made in Utah, and is 24-karat gold,' said Cook. Donald Trump appeared genuinely touched by the gift. But the plaque wasn't Cook's only offering: Apple announced that day it would invest another $100bn in US manufacturing. The timing appeared to work well for Apple. That day, Trump said Apple would be among the companies that would be exempt from a new US tariff on imported computer chips. The Art of the Deal looms large in the White House, where Trump is brokering agreements with powerful tech companies – in the midst of his trade war – that are reminiscent of the real estate transactions that launched him into fame. But in recent days, this dealmaking has entered uncharted waters. Two days after Cook and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang had a closed-door meeting with Trump at the White House. The president later announced Nvidia, along with its rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), will be allowed to sell certain artificial intelligence chips to Chinese companies – so long as they share 15% of their revenue with the US government. It was a dramatic about-face from Trump, who initially blocked the chips' exports in April. And it swiftly prompted suggestions that Nvidia was buying its way out of simmering tensions between Washington and Beijing. Trade experts say such a deal, where a company essentially pays the US government to export a good, could destabilize trading relations. Martin Chorzempa, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that it creates 'the perception that export controls are up for sale'. 'If you create the perception that licenses, which are supposed to be determined on pure national security grounds, are up for sale, you potentially open up room for there to be this wave of lobbying for all sorts of really, dangerous, sensitive technologies,' Chorzempa said. 'I think that's a very dangerous precedent to set.' Though the White House announced the deal, it technically hasn't been rolled out yet, likely because of legal complications. The White House is calling the deal a 'revenue-sharing' agreement, but critics point out that it could also be considered a tax on exports, which may not be legal under US laws or the constitution. The 'legality' of the deal was 'still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce', White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters this week. Nvidia and AMD's AI chips are at the heart of the technological arms race between the US and China. Nvidia, which became the first publicly traded company to reach a $4tn valuation last month, creates the essential processing chips that are used to run and develop AI. The US government has played a role in this arms race over the last several years, setting regulations on what AI chips and manufacturing equipment can be sent to China. If China has less computing power, the country will be slower to develop AI, giving a clear advantage to the US. But despite the restrictions, China has been catching up, raising questions on how US policy should move forward. 'They haven't held them back as far as the advocates had hoped. The US has an enormous computing advantage over China, but their best models are only a few months behind our best models,' Chorzempa said. For US policymakers, 'the question they've had to grapple with is: Where do you draw the line?' The AI chips Nvidia and AMD can now sell to China aren't considered high-end. While they can be used for inference on trained models, they aren't powerful enough to train new AI models. When announcing the deal with Nvidia and AMD, Trump said the chip is 'an old chip that China already possesses … under a different label'. This is where a major debate on AI policy comes in. Those who take a hardline stance on the US's relationship with China say that allowing Chinese companies to purchase even an 'old chip' could still help the country get an advantage over the US. Others would say a restriction on such chips wouldn't be meaningful, and could even be counterproductive. To balance these two sides, the Trump administration is asking companies to pay up in order to export to China – a solution that people on both sides of the AI debate say is a precarious one. 'Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance AI capabilities,' said John Moolenaar, a Republican US representative from Michigan, in a statement. But Trump's gut-reaction to dealmaking seems focused on the wallet. On Wednesday, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent praised the arrangement and suggested it could be extended to other industries over time. 'I think that right now this is unique, but now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it?' he told Bloomberg. Julia Powles, executive director of the Institute for Technology, Law and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the deal opens up questions of whether similar pressure can be applied to other tech companies. 'What other quid pro quo might be asked in the future? The quid pro quo that would be of great concern to the [tech] sector is anything that reduces their reputation for privacy and security,' Powles said. 'That's thinking of government like a transactional operator, not like an institution with rules about when, how and for what it can extract taxes, levies and subsidies.' But that seems to be how the White House runs now. When explaining to the press how he made the deal, Trump said he told Huang: 'I want 20% if I'm going to approve this for you'. 'For the country, for our country. I don't want it myself,' the president added. 'And he said, 'Would you make it 15?' So we negotiated a little deal.'
