CPSC Recalls 70,000 GOPO TOYS Teething Products Sold on Amazon After Three Choking Incidents

What the CPSC Found

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of GOPO TOYS Pull String Teething Toys, covering more than 70,000 units distributed between August 2023 and March 2026. The CPSC issued the recall after at least three children experienced choking or respiratory distress while using the product.

The agency's finding is specific: the silicone strings on the toy are both smaller in diameter and longer than what mandatory federal toy safety standards permit. That combination allows the strings to reach the back of a child's throat and become lodged there. The CPSC described the hazard as posing a risk of "serious respiratory distress" and a "deadly choking hazard."

The toys were sold exclusively on Amazon. They were distributed from San Bernardino, California, and manufactured in China, according to the CPSC alert reported by the New York Post.

What Parents Need to Do Right Now

The CPSC's instructions are unusually hands-on compared to a standard recall. Parents are directed to:

1. Stop children from using the toy immediately.
2. Cut all silicone strings on the toy.
3. Write DESTROYED in permanent marker on the toy itself.
4. Photograph the destroyed product.
5. Email the photo to recalls@gopotoys.com and discard the toy.

After completing those steps, consumers can contact GOPO Toys to receive a full refund. The CPSC's requirement to document destruction before receiving a refund is a stricter verification step than most recalls demand, likely reflecting the severity of the hazard.

Three Incidents, One Pattern

Three confirmed incidents involving choking or respiratory distress is not a massive number on its face. Some will argue a recall of 70,000 units over three incidents is a heavy-handed response.

That argument has merit. The products were on the market for roughly two and a half years. Most children who used them experienced no reported harm. Recalls based on small incident counts can generate unnecessary alarm and impose costs on manufacturers and retailers that may outweigh the actual risk.

However, the CPSC's authority to act does not hinge solely on incident volume. The agency found that the toy independently fails a mandatory safety standard, regardless of how many children have been hurt so far. The strings are out-of-spec. The hazard is structural, not a fluke. Three incidents involving an infant choking on a lodged string is three too many when the underlying design flaw is measurable and documented. The recall is grounded in a code violation, not just anecdote.

A Running Problem on Amazon's Marketplace

This is the third notable infant product recall in recent months tied to choking hazards.

In January, the CPSC announced a separate teething toy recall after dozens of choking incidents, according to the New York Post. Earlier this month, 40,000 reusable baby bottles sold at Walmart were recalled over a potential choking hazard. The GOPO recall adds another product to that list.

All three products moved through major retail channels — Amazon and Walmart — and two of the three were manufactured in China. The pattern raises a standing question about whether the import inspection and marketplace listing processes are catching out-of-spec products before they reach consumers, or whether the CPSC is functioning primarily as the last line of defense after children are already hurt.

Where GOPO Toys Stands

GOPO Toys is participating in the recall process, offering full refunds and providing a direct contact email for consumers to submit proof of destruction. No investigation beyond the standard recall process has been announced, and no charges have been filed.

The open question going forward is whether Amazon's post-sale notification system will reach the full 70,000 unit universe of buyers. Many Amazon purchases are made by gift-givers rather than end users, and not all of those buyers would necessarily be the parents monitoring an infant's daily toy use. The CPSC's effectiveness here depends substantially on whether the retailer actively pushes recall notices to purchasers rather than relying on parents to find the alert on their own.