Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: April 12, 2024
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
After a period of delayed enforcement, compliance is now required for several provisions of Reese’s Law (P.L. 117-171), which mandates federal safety requirements for button cell or coin batteries. To avoid unintended liability, manufacturers, importers, consumer products using such batteries, and distributors of button cell or coin batteries must be sure to understand their new packaging, performance, and labeling obligations.
Signed into law on August 16, 2022, Reese’s Law was enacted to protect children six years old and younger from button cell and coin battery ingestion hazards. Reese’s Law defines “button cell or coin batteries” as any single-cell battery with a diameter greater than the height of the battery and any other battery determined by the Commission to pose an ingestion hazard.
As required under the new law, on September 21, 2023, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) published a direct final rule to establish a Safety Standard for Button Cell or Coin Batteries and Consumer Products Containing Such Batteries (16 C.F.R. Part 1263.) The CPSC adopted ANSI/UL 4200A as a mandatory safety standard, which includes construction, performance, and labeling requirements. The CPSC granted a 180-day transitional period of enforcement discretion for its requirements, which expired on March 19, 2024.
The battery compartments of consumer products containing button cells and coin batteries must be difficult for children to access. In accordance with ANSI/UL 4200A:
ANSI/UL 4200A also includes performance requirements designed to ensure that batteries do not present a “risk of unintentional access by children.” Products must pass various performance tests, including drop, impact, crush, and tension tests, to confirm the batteries are not accessible or liberated as a result of use and abuse testing.
ANSI/UL 4200A also mandates that the principal display panel of packaging for consumer products containing button cell or coin batteries include a warning. The product itself must also bear a warning, if practicable. Additionally, all applicable warnings must be included in any accompanying instructions and manuals.
Notably, the performance and labeling requirements apply to consumer products containing or designed to use button cell or coin batteries. Accordingly, even if the product does not contain the battery when it is manufactured, imported, or sold, it is still subject to the applicable requirements. Consumer products that use such batteries should have a label placed on the battery access area.
Section 3 of Reese’s Law requires special packaging (child-resistant and senior-friendly packaging) for button cell or coin batteries, whether sold separately or included with a consumer product. Section 3 took effect by operation of the statute on February 12, 2023. While the CPSC announced that it would exercise enforcement discretion for packaging containing zinc-air batteries, enforcement discretion ended on March 8, 2024.
UL 4200A–2023 does not contain warning label requirements for button cell or coin battery packaging. Accordingly, the CPSC enacted a separate final rule (88 FR 65296) that applies to the packaging of button cell or coin batteries, including those packaged separately with a consumer product. Among other requirements, labels for batteries sold/packaged separately must include the following statements or similar:
This requirement will apply to products manufactured or imported after September 21, 2024.
Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), manufacturers of consumer products subject to a regulation, standard, or ban enforced by the CPSC must certify that those products meet the requirements of the standard by issuing a Children’s Product Certificate (CPC) for children’s products or a General Certificate of Compliance (GCC) for general-use products. Certificates for products subject to section 2 of Reese’s Law must include the citation “16 CFR § 1263.3 – Consumer products containing button cell or coin batteries” or “16 CFR § 1263.4 – Button cell or coin battery package labeling” depending on which requirements apply. Meanwhile, certificates for products subject to section 3 of Reese’s Law must include the citation “P.L. 117-171 § 3(a)– Button cell or coin battery packaging.”
Failure to comply with the CPSC’s new requirements may result in an enforcement action, including costly civil penalties. Accordingly, it is imperative that manufacturers, importers, and distributors of button cell or coin batteries quickly come into compliance. Scarinci Hollenbeck is equipped to provide comprehensive compliance assistance, and we encourage impacted entities to contact us with any concerns.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!