Reaction To Oral Hearing Nov 20th

In the matter of 22-9578 CPSC Magnetsafety.org, et al., Petitioners v. Consumer Product Safety Commission; Academy of Pediatrics,et al., Amici Curiae, the oral hearing took place on Wednesday, November 20, 2024 in Denver beginning at 9:00AM, and lasted for about 34 minutes.

Greg Dolin from the NCLA did a great job on behalf of MagnetSafety.org and the hobbyist groups. The following are supplementary comments from MagnetSafety.org, especially useful to those who haven’t been following.

The timestamps referred to can be found in the transcript and source audio.

Were CPSC’s Injury Estimates Conservative?

Absolutely not. In fact, this claim couldn’t be further from the truth.

During the oral hearing, Adam Jed, the government’s lawyer, asserted:

 “[CPSC] yielded a highly conservative estimate [of in-scope injuries]” (00:15:35:07 – 00:15:57:07), “You… rely on the best data that you have… the agency did so using conservatives steps across the board.” (00:25:12:23 – 00:25:35:13)

However, a closer examination reveals something far less defensible. To justify the 2022 high-powered magnet ban, CPSC appears to be attributing injuries largely to products that aren’t high-powered magnets. The disconnect between the scope of the banned products and the injuries cited to justify the regulation is stark and troubling.

For a detailed breakdown of this discrepancy, see: 2022 “In Scope” Comparison 

Why Wasn’t the AAP Amicus Brief contested?

During the hearing, the court noted:

 “there was an amicus brief filed by the American Academy of Pediatrics… they support the rule… they called the magnet ingestion a pediatric health crisis.” (00:05:33:50 – 00:05:52:41) “In your reply… I did not see you address the organization of physicians.” (00:05:52:46 – 00:06:06:57)
Link to the Amicus Brief

So, why wasn’t the AAP’s Amicus Brief contested? Because we fundamentally agree with it! There is a health crisis related to high-powered magnet ingestion. The AAP’s brief highlights why high-powered magnets are dangerous—points we fully acknowledge and support. After all, the Magnet Safety Organization exists to reduce injuries caused by these products, not to dispute their inherent risks.

The disagreement, and the very reason for this court case, lies in the approach advocated by the CPSC, supported by the AAP and others.

The Rule’s Effectiveness is Easily Disprovable

So why wasn’t the AAP’s Amicus Brief contested? Because we agree! There absolutely is a health crisis! The AAP’s amicus brief primarily speaks to why high powered magnets are so dangerous, and those are all precisely the points that we agree with. The Magnet Safety organization exists not because we disagree on the dangers of magnets, we have the same goal: reduction in high powered magnet injuries. The disagreement, and the whole reason this court contest exists, is because the approach taken by the CPSC, cheered on by the AAP and others.

The AAP and CPSC argue that their rule is effective, but the evidence says otherwise. The 2022 magnet ban has not stopped the sale of 5mm high-powered magnet spheres—the primary product it targets. Instead, it has driven the market offshore, reducing oversight and safety standards. This can be verified with a simple search for terms like “5mm magnet spheres” or “buckyballs.” For instance, the top result for “buckyballs” (https://www.buckyballsstore.com/) has continued to sell knockoffs since the rule was enacted.

A Better Approach

If the CPSC and AAP genuinely cared about safety, they would adopt a practical regulatory framework. This would involve:

• Recognizing the demand for high-powered magnet sets,
• Partnering with American companies to enhance safety packaging, standards, and education, and
• Implementing reasonable, enforceable rules grounded in reality.

Instead, they’ve championed a counterproductive, overreaching regulation that undermines both safety and consumer rights. The current approach is a Pyrrhic victory— a regulatory vehicle with little traction in the market, and fails to address the root issue while alienating stakeholders who could help drive meaningful change.

What else could the CPSC have done?

During the hearing, the court inquired:

 “[with] limited data … what more are you suggesting that the commission could have done here?” (00:09:35:31 – 00:09:55:15)

Transparency in Data

One clear step the CPSC could have taken is releasing the NEISS identification list for the 1,015 “In Scope” Magnet Ingestions and the 1,184 Confirmed Magnet Ingestions. This would allow public scrutiny to confirm whether the CPSC’s categorization of “In Scope” injuries aligns with their claims. The lack of transparency raises serious concerns about their methodology, and even from the partial data provided, we see significant indications of misrepresentation.

Addressing Disparities in Methodology

The CPSC should have explained the glaring disparities between their 2014 and 2022 rulemaking data. In 2014, high-powered magnets were linked to only about 21% of all magnet ingestions. Yet, in the 2022 rulemaking, the CPSC asserted that upwards of 81% of magnet ingestions were considered “in-scope.” Such a drastic shift in data interpretation demands justification, which the CPSC has failed to provide.

Hopefully, the court sees through the CPSC’s smoke and mirrors. Only by addressing these inconsistencies can we move toward meaningful progress in magnet safety—progress based on sound data, transparency, and effective regulation rather than dubious statistics and overreach.