Southern Telecom is recalling tens of thousands of Lomi roll-on waxing kits after federal regulators determined the power cord can overheat and short-circuit, creating fire, burn, and electrical shock hazards. The recall now covers two separate models and a combined total of roughly 34,200 units sold at discount retailers including Ross, DD’s, Bealls, and Burlington. The expanded action, which adds a second model and cites reported incidents since the original notice, raises the severity language to include a risk of serious injury or death.
Why a second model deepened the Lomi waxing kit recall
The original recall covered about 19,500 units of model LOMB2003PK, sold through brick-and-mortar discount chains and detailed in a 2024 notice from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The hazard was straightforward: the roll-on warmer’s power cord could overheat and short-circuit while plugged in, exposing anyone nearby to fire, burns, or electric shock. That initial notice prompted consumers to stop using the product and contact Southern Telecom for a remedy.
The recall did not stay contained. Federal safety officials later issued an expansion that added model LOMB2004PK and about 14,700 additional units, as outlined in a subsequent CPSC expansion announcement. The expansion notice explicitly referenced the prior recall and disclosed that additional incidents had been reported in the interim. That second wave suggests the company’s initial sales data did not capture the full scope of affected products reaching consumers. When a recall grows rather than shrinks, it often signals that retailer inventory records or distribution channels were incomplete at the time of the first filing.
The escalation in language between the two notices is also telling. While the first recall cited fire, burn, and shock hazards, the expanded version raised the stakes to include a risk of serious injury or death. That shift typically reflects either new incident data showing worse outcomes or a regulatory reassessment of the defect’s severity based on engineering review. Either way, the upgraded warning puts pressure on consumers who may have ignored the first notice to act now.
Cord overheating and the evidence trail across two CPSC notices
Both recall notices identify the same root cause: the power cord overheats and short-circuits. The defect is not in the wax cartridge, the roller head, or the heating element itself. It sits in the cord, the component most likely to be overlooked during quality testing because it appears to be a commodity part. A cord failure can arc, melt insulation, or spark a fire before a user even notices the warmer is malfunctioning. The fact that two distinct model numbers share the identical hazard mechanism points to a design or sourcing problem that carried over between product versions rather than a one-time manufacturing defect.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s public incident database at SaferProducts.gov allows consumers to search for and submit reports about product hazards. For anyone who owns either model, checking that database can confirm whether other users have reported similar overheating events and what outcomes they described. The expanded recall notice confirms that additional incidents surfaced after the first recall, though the agency has not published a specific count of injuries tied to the second model.
Southern Telecom, based in Brooklyn, New York, distributed the kits through off-price retailers that specialize in discounted goods. Those stores typically do not maintain the same point-of-sale tracking systems as full-price department stores, which can make it harder for a manufacturer to identify every buyer and issue direct notifications. The recall remedy instead relies on public announcements and in-store signage to reach consumers who purchased the kits at Ross, DD’s, Bealls, or Burlington.
Open questions about the Lomi recall and what buyers should do next
Several gaps remain in the public record. Neither recall notice specifies the exact number of overheating incidents or injuries reported across both models. Without that data, consumers cannot easily gauge how likely a cord failure is during normal use. The CPSC’s Office of Inspector General oversees recall effectiveness, but no public audit findings related to this specific action have appeared so far.
The timeline between the two notices also raises questions about how quickly Southern Telecom identified the second affected model. If model LOMB2004PK was already in production or on shelves when the first recall launched, the delay in adding it could mean that some consumers used a defective product for months without any warning. If it entered the market after the first recall, the company faces harder questions about why the same cord defect was not caught before a second model shipped.
For anyone who owns a Lomi roll-on waxing kit with either model number, the immediate guidance is clear. Consumers should stop using the product, unplug it, and keep it away from flammable materials. Because the hazard involves overheating and possible short-circuiting while the device is connected to power, even occasional or supervised use carries a risk that the cord could fail unexpectedly.
Owners should then confirm whether their kit is covered by checking the model number on the device or packaging and comparing it with the recall details published by the CPSC. If the product matches either LOMB2003PK or LOMB2004PK, consumers are instructed to contact Southern Telecom for the specified remedy, which may include a refund, replacement, or other corrective action outlined in the recall notices. Returning the product to the place of purchase is generally not required unless the retailer is explicitly participating in the recall process.
Consumers who have experienced overheating, smoke, sparks, or any related property damage should consider submitting a report to the CPSC through its online portal. Firsthand accounts help regulators understand how often the defect occurs, under what conditions, and whether the hazard profile is changing over time. Such reports can also inform future enforcement decisions if the agency determines that the manufacturer did not act quickly enough or failed to fully disclose the scope of the problem.
For now, the Lomi recall illustrates the challenges of policing safety in low-cost personal care devices sold through off-price channels. Commodity components like power cords may not receive the same scrutiny as more complex electronics, even though they can pose severe risks when they fail. When those products are then distributed through retailers with limited customer tracking, reaching every buyer after a defect surfaces becomes significantly harder.
Until regulators release more detailed incident data or conduct a public review of the recall’s effectiveness, consumers are left with a precautionary calculus. Given that the CPSC has now linked both Lomi models to a risk of serious injury or death, the safest course for anyone who still has one of these kits is to treat the recall as urgent, follow the official instructions, and avoid plugging the device in again.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
