BIKE IMPORTS DROP, E-BIKE IMPORTS REMAIN LARGELY UNKNOWN

By Jay Townley

02 26 26:“Annual bike imports fall to lowest number in at least a decade.”Bicycle Retailer and Industry News: “The latest import figures show the U.S. imported 8.54 million bikes last year, 21 percent fewer than in 2024 and the lowest number in at least a decade. The imposition of import tariffs, combined with years of oversupply following the COVID sales boom, caused the industry to curtail imports sharply. The charts in this BRAIN article show imports of bikes, not including e-bikes, unicycles, handcycles, and other kinds of cycles. Some of the charts break out adult bikes from the others, which gives a better sense of the specialty market, because bike sales by unit are heavily dominated by low-cost juvenile bikes sold in the mass market (we define adult as bikes with 26-inch wheels and larger). All the charts in the article are based on figures released by the Census’s USA Trade Online program … The industry has been shifting production away from China rapidly. In 2019, the last full year before the pandemic, China provided 80 percent of the adult bikes imported by the U.S. By 2025, that figure had dropped to 38 percent, with Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam picking up much of the new business … The pie charts in the gallery in the article show that the shift away from China was a bit less extreme when all sizes of bikes are counted, because the mass market still sourced many kids’ bikes from China.” HPS ANALYSIS: This article was very disturbing to me. It says 2025 total bicycle imports are: “ … the lowest number in at least a decade.” I had a data table on my desk as I read this that clearly shows that the 8,540,268 is the lowest total U.S. bicycle imports since the year 2000. That is 26 years ago, total U.S. bicycle imports for the year 2000 were 20,473,848! Let us start with the fact that the U.S. bicycle business is import-dependent. If it isn’t imported, it isn’t available for sale to consumers in any meaningful quantity. Two of the Walton grandsons own Allied Cycle Works in Bentonville, Arkansas, and while they produce and sell some of the world’s finest and highest priced bicycles, their sales volume in the thousands doesn’t come close to the multiple millions of bicycles sold annually by the retailer their family owns, and that are all imported. The fact that this import data does not include e-bikes is even more disturbing, because it means the U.S. government, and worse yet the bicycle industry, has no idea, based on an agreed estimate and methodology, about how many e-bikes were imported, in units or value, into the U.S. in 2025, an agreed seminal year in the rise of e-bikes in the U.S. market. I have been told that this isn’t important and we can rely on the data showing “sell-in” and “sell-through.” I am sorry, but we cannot. In direct response to Steve Frothingham’s question in the headline of his March 10 article: “Did e-bike imports exceed the value of non-electric bike imports last year?” The answer isn’t “maybe.” It is a definite NO! Among the chaos and disruption this industry faces in 2026 is the uncertainty of not knowing with any reliable assurance how many units, and at what dollar value, electric bicycles were imported into the U.S. commercial marketplace last year, 2025. I am not sure we will ever know within acceptable data parameters.   

02 27 26: “Why another U.S. state is preparing a 10 m.p.h. e-bike speed limit [Update].” electrek: “Florida is the latest U.S. state to wade into the increasingly crowded waters of e-bike regulation, with lawmakers advancing a bill that would impose a situational 10 m.p.h. (16 km/h) speed limit for e-bikes on shared-use paths. It’s a move that fits squarely into a broader national trend, as states and cities across the country reconsider how electric bikes fit into public spaces that were never designed with fast, motor-assisted travel in mind. [Update February 27, 2026: The Florida Senate has unanimously passed this bill, and now it moves on to the House, where if it also passes, it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law.] The proposed Florida legislation isn’t a blanket crackdown on e-bikes, nor does it rewrite the familiar three-class system as we’ve seen in harsher crackdowns such as the recently created New Jersey law. Instead, it zeroes in on where and how e-bikes are used, particularly on sidewalks and multi-use paths where speed differences between users can quickly become a safety issue. What the bill proposes:At the center of the bill is a requirement that e-bike riders slow to 10 m.p.h. (16 km/h) or less when operating on shared-use paths or sidewalks that are occupied by pedestrians. Riders would be required to drop to these speeds when operating within 50 feet (15 meters) of pedestrians. In practice, this means that even an e-bike capable of much higher speeds would need to crawl along at near jogging pace when mixing closely with walkers, runners, or slower mobility devices. Riders would also be required to yield to pedestrians on these paths and to give an audible signal, such as a verbal warning or a bike bell, before passing. The bill also includes familiar language clarifying enforcement authority for local governments, but goes further, requiring police to specifically record and track all electric bike-related accidents and mandating the creation of a task force that would further analyze the issue and determine if changes to the regulations are necessary. Supporters argue that these provisions are less about punishing riders and more about creating clear, enforceable expectations in spaces where conflicts are becoming more common.” HPS ANALYSIS: Why is another U.S. state preparing a 10 m.p.h. e-bike speed limit? This, with all due respect, is the wrong question. At the risk of sounding angry, I think the right question is: Why is another U.S. state preparing to pass state legislation affecting e-bikes, or even bicycles for that matter? I am told that the reason is that the American bicycle industry is not “aligned” on the issues. Seems to me the largest trade association, that wants the smaller trade associations to “align” with it does not have enough tactical control or a significant enough voice of each of the individual state legislative situations to be the strategic planner for national and state “alignment.” Florida may have many more special circumstances relative to roads, streets, and paths, but I suggest a national strategic plan concerning “alignment” needs to be established to make situations like Florida legislatively manageable to achieve better outcomes for the American bicycle business.

02 27 26: “China now requiring traceability on e-bike parts and batteries under new safety reform.” electrek: “China is tightening oversight of its massive electric bicycle industry with a new reform that will require mandatory product traceability markings on electric bikes and several of their major related components.According to an announcement from the China Automobile Certification Center (CCAP), electric bicycles, lithium-ion batteries for e-bikes, chargers, and even helmets will now need to display the CCC mark alongside a traceable QR code. The move is part of a pilot reform under China’s CCC (China Compulsory Certification) framework. The CCC is the main regulatory compliance body in China, something akin to CE in Europe or UL in the U.S. The new guidelines mark a fairly significant shift in how China plans to regulate and enforce compliance in the e-bike sector. Under the new rules, each certified product must carry a unique QR code that corresponds one-to-one with its certification record. That means regulators can scan the code and trace the product back to its specific certification documentation, manufacturer, and potentially even production batch. Newly certified products must comply starting March 1, 2026, while products already certified under the current system must implement the traceable marking by March 1, 2027. The goal is to strengthen enforcement, reduce counterfeiting of CCC marks, and improve accountability in an industry that has faced recurring scrutiny – particularly around lithium-ion battery safety. Battery fires in electric two-wheelers have been a persistent issue in China and other parts of Asia, and regulators have steadily tightened manufacturing and certification requirements over the past several years. By linking each product’s certification mark to a scannable digital record, authorities gain a far more precise enforcement tool. Non-compliant products become easier to identify, recalls can be more targeted, and counterfeit certification labels become harder to pass off as legitimate. There have already been several cases of fraudulent UL certificationson e-bikes in the US, and a regulation like this will prevent such cases from occurring in Chinese e-bikes or batteries.” HPS ANALYSIS: My business partner Mike Fritz has traveled extensively in China, visiting a variety of component manufacturers and the OEMs involved in the e-bike export supply chain. He keeps telling me the Chinese bicycle/e-bike supply channel has and is upgrading and improving constantly, and this is an example. While China has declined recently as the largest source of e-bikes, it will continue to be the go-to source for electric drive system components, and the new system of and for Chinese certification requirements, marking, and identification. Such an industry-wide system will assist in U.S. CPSC recalls of e-bikes and electric system components like lithium-ion batteries. HPS will continue to pass along relevant information.

03 10 26: “Did e-bike imports exceed the value of non-e-bike imports last year? Maybe!” Bicycle Retailer and Industry News: “Two industry research groups have shared estimates of the number of e-bikes the U.S. imported last year, with one group estimating a record number of imports and the other estimating a significant decline from 2024. By one estimate, the value of e-bikes imported last year exceeded the value of non-electric bikes for the first time. Peter Woolery from Bicycle Market Research estimates the industry imported 1.3 million e-bikes last year. Meanwhile, the Light Electric Vehicle Association and eCycleElectric Consultants put the number much higher: 2.2 million e-bikes. Both groups say they use a similar method to get their total: a close examination of thousands of import records, relying partly on deep industry knowledge to separate out e-bikes from other electric two-wheelers, which share an HTUS import code. Because of the shared code, BRAIN typically reports on the imports of non-electric bikes, and industry members have been tallying those imports in a similar way for decades (BRAIN has been doing it in our Tradewatch column in our print magazine since the early 1990s, when we received the figures in a thick manila envelope each month). That history is why our article on the total number of bikes imported in 2025 caught the attention of some longtime industry watchers. We reported that 2025 bike imports slumped to the lowest figures in decades, dropping to the lowest unit count this century and the lowest dollar value ($850 million) since 2003, dropping below the billion-dollar line for the first time since 2006. But e-bikes have quickly replaced non-electric bike sales in many categories and channels, and e-bikes have a significantly higher average selling price. So what do the import figures look like if we include them?LEVA estimates a record:LEVA/eCycleElectric estimated that the U.S. imported 2.2 million e-bikes last year, a 24 percent increase over 2024. Added to the USA Trade Online count of bicycles imported, the total number of bikes and e-bikes imported comes to 10.74 million, above the magic 10-million mark. Using LEVA's estimates for the last five years, added to the USA Trade figures, we see 2025’s total was far from a record low. In fact, a lower number was reached as recently as 2023.Bicycle Market Research finds a smaller number:BMR’s Peter Woolery has estimated e-bike imports going back to 2016. Since 2020, his estimates have been relatively close to LEVA’s, sometimes higher, sometimes lower, as the table below shows. But for 2025, LEVA’s number is more than 40 percent higher than Woolery’s. Combining BMR’s estimate with the USA Trade Online figures, the 2025 total is still under 10 million, and still the lowest count in at least 26 years. What about the dollar value?Neither LEVA nor BMR estimates the dollar value of e-bike imports.” HPS ANALYSIS: HPS’s compliments Stephen Frothingham for this factual and insightful article. If anything, Stephen is too nice. Let’s start with the fact that there was no estimated import value from either LEVA or BMR. In the past, and in fact for the last 16 years, LEVA has provided an estimate of the declared import dollar value of e-bikes imported into the U.S., a small but very important piece of data that allows a calculation of the estimated average import value. For example, in 2024 LEVA estimated the total e-bike import value of $940,000,000, or an estimated unit value of $552.94, down from $1,200.00 in 2023. This may be of interest to a small group of data analysts, but it is, in my opinion, one of the most important sets of data-generated trend lines available. This also relates to the most important bicycle product category that the U.S. industry is attempting to integrate into its ecosystem. At this juncture, we are flying blind. 

02 28 26: “How U.S. businesses are shaving billions off their tariff bills.” The Wall Street Journal: “Importers may not be able to escape a tariff, but they can pay it on a smaller amount. A well-honed tariff-reduction playbook is giving businesses—and the lawyers who advise them—some confidence that they can deal with President Trump’s latest tariffs. One of the most effective plays is reducing the reported value of goods companies bring into the U.S. Importers may not be able to escape a tariff, such as the global 15 percent rate Trump announced after the recent Supreme Court ruling, but they can pay it on a smaller amount. A legal way to do this has had such an impact that a bipartisan pair of senators wants to ban it. How it works:Typically, an American importer declares the value of the goods it brings into the country based on what it pays. If an American furniture retailer pays a Chinese trading company $300 for a sofa subject to a 50 percent tariff, it would normally declare that value and owe U.S. Customs $150. But under a legal precedent established in the 1980s, companies that dig deeper into their supply chains can report what was paid in the ‘first sale.’ Suppose the original manufacturer of the sofa sold it for $200 to the trading company, which then marked it up to $300. The American retailer can declare the value of the sofa as $200—the first sale—and pay customs only $100 in duties. ‘If you’re assuming you have to pay a tariff, then the only way to lower your liability is to change the value a bit,’ said Dave Townsend, an international trade lawyer at Dorsey & Whitney. When tariffs were low, companies often didn’t bother to investigate the first-sale price because the paperwork required to prove it was considerable. Now podcasts and webinars have spread the word, and lawyers say the tactic is common. Another method is ‘unbundling,’ or carving out costs such as insurance or transport that generally aren’t subject to tariffs. Importers try to figure out what part of their import bill is tied to the actual manufacturing of the product—and pay the tariff only on that amount. Why it matters:Using the first-sale rule is one of several steps companies can take to lessen the tariff hit. They can also move production to lower-tariff countries such as Mexico, whose goods are often tariff-free thanks to its trade deal with the U.S., or tweak the composition of their goods so they qualify for lower-tariff product categories. And Trump has exempted some goods, such as smartphones and beef, from his tariffs. All this goes a long way toward explaining why the tariffs haven’t fueled high inflation.” HPS ANALYSIS: The larger the company or brand, the more it can pay law firms that specialize in import-export to “work” the details. The larger companies can also spend on lobbying efforts to get exceptions and changes to U.S. tariff laws and regulations. This manipulation of the tariff laws, Harmonized Tariff Numbers (HTS), and entries has been going on ever since tariffs have existed, and has now been elevated to a legal specialty. The problem for small importers and specialty bicycle retailers is their relative size. They are, for the most part, not big enough to hire a law firm or a high-powered (well-connected) lobbying firm and have to rely on the representation provided by their trade associations or other affiliations. This means that as the tariff situation shifts, changes, and evolves, the bicycle business trade associations should, in HPS’s opinion, develop and continually publish a well-honed tariff-reduction playbook for supplier and retailer members.

03 03 26: “Dollar reclaims ultimate haven role as war, inflation angst grow.” Bloomberg: “The widening conflict in the Middle East has made one thing clear: At a time when investors are rushing for safety, the dollar is still the premier asset of choice. As stocks swoon, and even gold and Treasuries — traditional havens — tumble as the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran intensifies, the dollar’s rise stands out. Since the onset of the conflict over the weekend, the U.S. currency is staging its biggest two-day rally in nearly a year. ‘The dollar is behaving in a classic manner during these periods of risk aversion and uncertainty — and that is the safe haven king,’ Paresh Upadhyaya, a strategist at Pioneer Investments, said. ‘This is escalating beyond just risk aversion and a flight to quality, to the market questioning the outlook for global growth and inflation.’ The demand for the dollar has served as a counterpoint to doubts that have cropped up about the greenback as the world’s preeminent reserve currency, stifling the ‘debasement’ narrative that had cropped up amid President Donald Trump’s trade wars. While a protracted conflict stands to sow further concern about U.S. policy decisions and America’s status on the world stage, the fact is that at least for now, there is no better substitute for the dollar. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index has rallied 1.3 percent this week. Against that backdrop, nearly all 16 major currencies tracked by Bloomberg fell on Tuesday, with the euro sliding to its weakest level since November before paring the decline. Options markets echoed the dollar’s spot moves: Traders now need to pay to hedge against a broad rally in the dollar, a sharp contrast to just a few days ago, when options pricing showed them historically undecided on where the currency would move next. Risk reversals — a barometer of market positioning — indicated that traders are the most optimistic they’ve been on the dollar over a short horizon since 2024. What Bloomberg Strategists Say...’The dollar remains the clearest beneficiary of the conflict in the Middle East, supported by both its safe-haven status and the U.S.’s position as a net energy exporter, while most major currency counterparts are net importers. The dollar’s historical relationship with supply-driven oil shocks suggests there is still scope to extend its gains.” HPS ANALYSIS: Despite the administration advocating for a weaker dollar, HPS advocates for a stronger dollar so that the value of our imports is not diminished, adding to inflationary pressure on retailers and the economy. 

03 05 26: “Wall Street is betting on tariff refunds after Supreme Court ruling.” National Public Radio npr: “When the Supreme Court struck down a huge portion of President Trump's tariffs last month, it set off a wave of uncertainty about how, when, and if the approximately $180 billion in tariffs that importers have paid might be refunded. And Wall Street seized the opportunity to make some money. In fact, it had already cooked up a trade for this. It’s offer to importers: Instead of waiting indefinitely to recoup the money they spent on tariffs, they could sell to hedge funds their claims to tariff refunds, or a portion of them, at a discount. In return, hedge funds would get the full claim amount when — and if — refunds come through. And they'd also take on the burden of pursuing those claims. Wes Harrell, who heads a trading group at Seaport Global, has been connecting importers and hedge funds on these trades since last November. Since the ruling, he said, everyone wants in. ‘There has just been a tremendous amount of inquiry, both from buyers and sellers,’ Harrell said. Altogether, he said, he has seen about a couple of hundred million dollars' worth of these trades. But he ballparked the inquiries at as much as a billion dollars in potential future trades. ‘Of late, these trades are going for roughly 45 cents on the dollar on average, although the actual value of each trade varies. That's up from 40 cents right after the Supreme Court's ruling — and around double what they were trading at before it.’ Harrell says importers are likely still taking stock of their refund options. He predicts the uptick in interest could presage an explosion of new trades. If importers sold even a fraction of the $180 billion it's estimated that they paid, it would mean a fortune for Wall Street. ‘It's a $40 billion opportunity,’ Harrell said. ‘And I think that's a low estimate.’" HPS ANALYSIS: Wall Street is betting, literally, on Customs and Border Protection (CBP) eventually making refunds on money collected under the IEEPA Tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court. What’s the book? 40 to 45 cents on the dollar, a $40 billion opportunity. What a World we now live in and do business in. 

03 10 26: “Iran war cost will be passed to consumers, shipping giant boss tells BBC.” British Broadcasting Corporation bbc: “Increased shipping costs driven by the conflict in Iran will be passed on to consumers, the boss of the world's second biggest shipping company has said. ‘We have traditional contracting mechanisms that pass on this fuel fluctuation, whether they go up or they go down, onto the customers,’ Vincent Clerc, the boss of Danish shipping giant Maersk, told the BBC in an exclusive interview. ‘So what it means is that ultimately, in this case, these increases will pass to our customers and will pass on to the consumers.’ The Danish firm is dominated by its container shipping arm, which plays a vital role in moving consumer goods such as toys, clothing, and electronics around the world. He called on the U.S., Israel, and Iran to come to ‘some kind of deal’ to restore global trade routes in the Middle East, saying that would be a better option than escorts from Western navies to reopen the waterways. The war between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. has brought two vital shipping routes to an almost complete standstill and caused widespread disruption to the global economy. At the same time, the world's biggest shipping lines are also avoiding passage through the Red Sea because of the security threats. Clerc said: "Ultimately, we need to get back to something where freedom of navigation and peaceful navigation are restored.’ The higher cost of longer voyages around the Cape of Good Hope and higher oil prices mean that shipping is becoming more expensive, adding to upward inflationary pressures, he added. ‘The main concern is the safety of our crews, the safety of our assets,’ Clerc said. He said that as long as the significant threat of drone strikes remains, with no guarantee of a truce between the two sides, ‘it is very hard for us to put our colleagues and our ships in harm's way.’ The extra costs work out at around $200 for a standard 20-ft shipping container, which means ‘anything from a 15 percent to a 20 percent increase on some of the freight cost.,’ Clerc said. Maersk's rivals MSC and Hapag-Lloyd have also increased charges because of the Iran-linked interruptions to their services.” HPS ANALYSIS: The cost of wars, like tariffs, is eventually passed along to American consumers. An additional cost of $200 per 20-foot container means an additional $400 per 40-foot container, divided by approximately 140 e-bikes per 40-foot container, equals an additional $2.86 in shipping costs per e-bike, and so it goes. Bike shops – watch for shipping surcharges on shipments and dispute any upcharges that aren’t covered in your purchase agreements. Remember to negotiate everything.

03 12 26: “Customer sues Costco for tariff refunds.” British Broadcasting Corporation bbc: “A Costco customer in the U.S. has taken the retailer to court, demanding that the company use potential tariff refunds to return money to shoppers who paid more due to the levies. In a proposed class action lawsuit, customer Matthew Sockov argues that Costco is in the position to potentially recoup its tariff costs twice, ‘from customers through elevated pricing and from the government.’He says that amounts to ‘unjust enrichment’ and asks the court to order the firm to refund shoppers. The legal battle is a sign of the complexities looming over the roughly $166bn (£124bn) in tariff refunds the U.S. owes to companies since the Supreme Court struck down many of Trump's tariffs last month. The ruling left the refund process in the hands of the Court of International Trade, which has ordered the government to start returning money. But there is significant uncertainty as to when that might happen - and who might benefit. Importers paid those taxes when they brought the goods into the country, but in many cases, at least, some portion of the cost was passed on to distributors and customers in the form of higher prices. Sockov's complaint, which was filed against Costco in federal court in Illinois, cites a Goldman Sachs report that estimates that consumers were ‘shouldering two-thirds of President Trump's new tariff costs.’ Last week, the Trump administration told the court it needed 45 days to create a new electronic process to handle the task, warning that its current systems would otherwise be overwhelmed. It said more than 330,000 different importers were eligible for refunds as a result of the decision, which struck down tariffs Trump had imposed on dozens of countries under a 1977 emergency law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). ‘Existing administrative procedures and technology are not well suited to a task of this scale and will require manual work that will prevent personnel from fully carrying out the agency's trade enforcement mission,’ Brandon Long, executive director of the agency's trade programs, said in a court filing.” HPS ANALYSIS: It is beyond my wildest imagination to even think of filing suit against a retailer like Costco to get the tariff embedded in the products I purchased from them refunded. But it’s a new age, and this guy may be an attorney. It also probably has something to do with my living “out in the country” since April of 1990, and not having a Costco within 50 miles of me. I do have a Walmart, and there very well may be an individual who will have the wherewithal and the fortitude to file a lawsuit against the largest retailer in the U.S. in an attempt to get a refund of tariffs paid, but that just may be mission impossible. 

03 13 26: “Giant, Ideal, and Merida report revenue declines in 2025.” Bicycle Retailer and Industry News: “Three Taiwanese publicly traded bike manufacturers released their full 2025 earnings reports this week, with all three reporting revenue declines in 2025, but two of them showing earnings improvements. Giant Group: On Friday, Giant's board approved the company's previously released preliminary numbers. The company's 2025 revenue was NT$60.25 billion ($TK), a 15.5 percent decline from 2024. However, the group's gross margin improved to 19.8 percent, up from 19.0 percent last year. Net profit before tax reached NT$1.38 billion, compared to NT$1.26 billion in 2024. Earnings per share was NT$1.84, compared to NT$3.22 in 2024. Ideal Bike: Ideal Bike reported 2025 revenue of NT$2.194 billion, down 17 percent from 2024’s revenue. Ideal had a net operating loss of NT$433 million, compared to a net operating loss of NT$283 million in 2024. Loss per share was NT$1.39, versus a loss per share of NT$0.74 in 2024. Ideal's gross profit margin was -3.02 percent, compared to 4.56 percent in 2024. Preliminary January revenue figures show Ideal's revenue declined 53.2 percent in the first month, to NT$117.2 million. Merida Industries: Merida Industries revenue in 2025 was NT$26.76 billion, down 9.7 percent from 2024. Net profit for the year was NT$1.2 billion, compared to a net loss of NT$699 million in 2024. Earnings per share was NT4.01, compared to a loss per share of NT$2.34 in 2024. In preliminary revenue numbers from January, Merida's revenue was NT$1.39 billion, down 44.4 percent from the same month in 2024.” HPS ANALYSIS: I just returned from the NBDA Summit and CABDA West Expo in Las Vegas, and the buzz last week was “who” among the brands is in trouble and “who” is going into Chapter 7 or 11 next? This wasn’t mainstream discussion, but it was definitely part of the private conversations. The financial situation of the top three Taiwanese public companies in the bicycle industry is discussed above, and we have previously reviewed the financial reports coming out of Europe. There were two overlapping gatherings of bicycle industry people last week, both out West. There were high-powered, well-respected, and knowledgeable speakers at the Bicycle Leadership Conference (BLC), and the NBDA Summit and CABDA West Expo. Given the state of the bicycle business and the geopolitical situation, it is too bad that the two couldn’t have been combined for the mutual good of the whole. Meanwhile, the financials of the top three Taiwanese OEMs show a weakening and unstable industry, which doesn’t even agree or know how many e-bikes were imported into the U.S. last year.

03 13 26: “U.S. launches new investigations into 60 countries as it fights to restore tariffs.” CBS NEWS: “The Trump administration's top trade official launched investigations Thursday into dozens of countries accused of failing to crack down on forced labor, flexing a law that lets the federal government impose tariffs and other trade restrictions as President Trump grapples with a Supreme Court ruling that struck down many of his tariffs. The investigations are taking place under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law aimed at restricting unfair trade practices. The roughly 60 countries and territories that were hit with investigations include some of the U.S.'s largest trading partners, like China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement announcing the probes: ‘For too long, American workers and firms have been forced to compete against foreign producers who may have an artificial cost advantage gained from the scourge of forced labor.’ The formal legal papers that launched the investigation argue that many other countries, unlike the U.S., lack strong prohibitions on imports that are made using forced labor. As a result, firms in those countries could ‘source, use, and profit from imported products produced with forced labor,’ putting American companies at a disadvantage. ‘These investigations will determine whether foreign governments have taken sufficient steps to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor and how the failure to eradicate these abhorrent practices impacts U.S. workers and businesses,’ Greer said. Greer's statement does not threaten tariffs. But Section 301 allows his office to impose tariffs and import restrictions if an investigation finds that a country engaged in unfair trade practices. A day earlier, Greer announced a separate set of Section 301 probes into 16 U.S. trading partners, taking aim at allegations of ‘structural excess capacity,’ or manufacturing more goods than a country can reasonably consume.“ HPS ANALYSIS: HPS has no doubt there will be tariffs, and despite the Supreme Court decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs and before the end of the 150-day period of the recently imposed Section 122 tariffs the administration will impose new Section 301 tariffs on the largest source countries for bicycles, e-bikes and parts and accessories imported into the U.S. These new Section 301 tariffs will be “stacked” on top of the existing Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariffs. In addition, the Commerce Department will, in our opinion, find that Section 232 steel and aluminum content tariffs be imposed on bicycles imported from these same source countries, with the stated message that it is the policy of the U.S. administration to make it difficult to import products into the U.S. and to encourage and promote manufacturing of consumer goods in the U.S.

03 23 26: “Cheap e-bike maker refuses recall as CPSC tells riders to get rid of it immediately.” electrek: “The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a stark warning to riders of the Ridstar Q20 and Q20 Pro electric bikes, urging owners to stop using them immediately due to a serious fire risk. But in a troubling twist, the manufacturer has refused to cooperate with a recall. Without an agreement, the CPSC’s notice isn’t an official recall, but rather a warning to owners of the apparent danger hidden in this specific manufacturer’s e-bike. According to the CPSC, the issue stems from the bikes’ lithium-ion battery systems and associated wiring, which can ignite and pose a significant fire hazard. The agency says it is aware of at least 11 incidents involving fires linked to the e-bikes. Those incidents include one reported burn injury, five cases of smoke inhalation, and two instances of property damage totaling more than $40,000. The bikes included a 48V20Ah battery, and advertisements even included a UL logo, though we’ve seen previous cases of cheap e-bikes fraudulently displaying the UL logo in their advertisements despite lacking any official certifications from UL. While there has not been any statement from Underwriter Laboratories about Ridstar specifically being one of these companies, it is exceedingly rare for such low-cost e-bike manufacturers to have actually obtained UL safety certifications. The CPSC warning, issued on March 19, 2026, goes beyond the usual ‘stop using’ guidance. The CPSC is urging consumers to remove the battery from the bike immediately and dispose of it through proper hazardous waste channels. Importantly, the agency stresses that these batteries should not be thrown in the trash, placed in standard recycling streams, or even dropped off in typical battery recycling boxes, such as those at home improvement stores, due to the heightened fire risk. The affected bikes are sold under the Ridstar brand, with the Q20 and Q20 Pro models typically featuring black frames and a battery labeled with the Ridstar name. They were widely available through major online retailers, including Amazon, Walmart, and the company’s own website. With many of Ridstar’s e-bikes selling for $700 or less, these are seen as some of the cheapest electric bikes on the market. Most educated e-bike media recommend avoiding such low-cost ‘Amazon specials,’ though the price tag often attracts those on shoestring budgets still hoping to snag a fast and powerful e-bike. What makes this situation particularly concerning is the response from the manufacturer, Huizhou Xingqishi Sporting Goods Co., Ltd., based in China. According to the CPSC, the company has refused to agree to an acceptable recall, leaving consumers without a clear path to refunds or replacements.” HPS ANALYSIS: This is a sad example of a product hazard associated with cheap, low-cost e-bikes sold directly to consumers by the two largest retailers in the U.S., which have counterfeit certification, and the current plethora of ill-conceived state laws can do nothing to stop it. The end result of the 11 incidents, involving lithium-ion battery fires, is injuries and $40,000 in property damage – so far – that will generate bad publicity and dissatisfaction with e-bikes, which will only grow as consumers are unable to get any customer service, refunds, or replacements. Our industry needs to rally around testing and certification to the voluntary UL standards by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and work with UL to make all retailers, large and small, responsible for passing certificates of compliance along to end users, and stocking and selling only tested and certified e-bikes and replacement lithium-ion batteries.  

Contact Jay Townley: jay@humanpoweredsolutions.com