Keezio, which sells infant and toddler sleep products through its own website and Amazon, challenged the agency's issuance of a press release warning that its mattress posed risks of serious injury or death. The company had previously received a Notice of Violation after CPSC testing determined the product failed to comply with safety standards. Keezio alleged that CPSC applied the wrong regulatory standard and conducted improper testing by using a prototype mattress and an incompatible play yard, but CPSC issued an Amended Notice of Violation and directed a recall.
The dispute arose after CPSC notified Amazon by email that it would issue a unilateral press release regarding the mattress, instructing Amazon to distribute the notice to all customers who had purchased the product. CPSC informed Keezio’s counsel of the planned release less than thirty minutes after emailing Amazon. The press release advised consumers to stop using the mattresses immediately due to risks of entrapment or suffocation.
Amazon distributed the notice to approximately 108,000 customers and offered refunds at Keezio’s expense. Nearly 34,000 customers requested refunds totaling approximately $1.2 million. Amazon removed all Keezio OEM Replacement Mattresses from its platform, regardless of production date, and did not require proof of disposal.
Keezio filed suit alleging unlawful agency action under the APA and a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The company argued that the press release constituted final agency action because it marked the consummation of CPSC’s decisionmaking process and set in motion legal obligations.
The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the press release did not constitute final agency action under the APA. The court reasoned that the press release did not order Keezio to do anything, impose determinate legal consequences, or fix obligations or legal relationships. Market-based consequences such as refunds and reputational harm do not transform a press release into an agency order.
The court distinguished the case from Doe v. Tenenbaum, where a CPSC decision to publish a third-party report was deemed final agency action because it consummated an adversarial process defined by statute. Here, CPSC had no statutory mandate to publish the press release, and Keezio did not invoke the regulatory mechanism for seeking retraction of inaccurate disclosures.
The court also dismissed Keezio’s due process claim, holding that the company failed to allege a cognizable property interest deprived by CPSC. The court noted that reputational harm and financial losses resulting from third-party market reactions do not constitute a constitutional deprivation of property. The court emphasized that CPSC did not prohibit Keezio from selling its products; rather, Amazon chose to issue refunds and cease sales.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Keezio’s motion to take judicial notice of a government record was granted.