Drop Cam cameras and photo equipment
2 reports to CPSC, the latest made Jul 27, 2016. A report isn’t a recall.
Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CPSC’s own search is on saferproducts.gov.
At a glance
From SaferProducts.gov, released Oct 25, 2026.
- 2reports to CPSC
- Jul 27, 2016the latest report was made
- Jun 30, 2012the earliest
- 1with the company’s comments
- Brand
- Drop Cam
- Makers
- Dropcam and Nest Labs, Inc.Makers, importers or sellers, as the reports name them
- Product
- Cameras and photo equipmentCPSC’s product type: Photographic Equipment (code 536), in Electronics: Cameras & Camcorders
Other ways the reports write the brand (1)
“DropCam”
By month
The numbers, as a table
| Month | Reports |
|---|---|
| July 2016 | 1 |
| June 2012 | 1 |
How badly anyone was hurt
- Seen by a doctor or nurse 1 CPSC: Injury, Seen by Medical Professional
- Hurt, no treatment 1 CPSC: Injury, No First Aid or Medical Attention Received
As each report says it, in short words; CPSC’s own words are under each.
The reports, as CPSC published them
Reports people made to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC publishes each one after sending it to the company named, and doesn’t guarantee they’re accurate. A report isn’t a recall.
Each report is the words of the person who made it, as CPSC published them. The company’s comments, where CPSC published any, are set apart as the company’s own.
CPSC, SaferProducts.gov public database export. Released Oct 25, 2026. Updated daily.
-
Seen by a doctor or nurse Made Jul 27, 2016, sent to the company Aug 5, 2016, published by CPSC Aug 26, 2016
The product, in the report: From Drop Cam Security Monitoring Camera, owned by NEST, black camera on a silver metal mount with a long white cord that has a circuit box at the end of it. camera, cord, and box all say Drop Cam on them.
On July 15, 2016, a fire began in our home studio/man cave that was started by a faulty Drop Cam/NEST Security Monitoring Camera. We have footage recorded, and saved, of the day before the incident, the day of the incident, and when the fire started. The camera was having issues all day with the night vision and was making loud clicking noises turning on and off. The only thing plugged into the socket where the fire started was the camera and the air conditioning unit (which was not running and hadn’t been on since the evening before for a very short period of time) we have the video footage proving it was off.
After the fire, the head fire chief made a report stating that the fire started because of the faulty camera. He said the cord (which has a box at the bottom of it) was over heating and because it got so hot the cord of the AC ignited and in turn caused the room to go up in flames. We have footage of the fire starting and smoke coming from underneath the camera, where it was plugged in.
Our renters insurance sent out a cause and origin inspector, whom explained to me that it is obvious where the fire stared due to the pattern of the smoke prints (at the place the camera was plugged in). He also opened the new socket and wiring, and said that there was nothing wrong inside the building with the electrical. We have advised NEST of the issue with the camera and the only thing they did was send us a refurbished one and sent out their own investigator.
Not only are we out over 150K above our policy limits, but I am suffering from PTSD due to the experience. I was home with my daughter during the fire and I have horrible emotional distress after it. I cannot work, I cannot sleep, and I am concerned this will happen in someone else’s home or god forbid a babies room. I have turned off all of the cameras in my home and I’m upset that we are being brushed aside. I have gone to my therapist for help in dealing with the stress and fear after the fire. Every friend I have spoken to about this, that has children, is freaked out and it urging me to speak out to media about this. Many of them have NEST drop cams in their home and they are concerned, as am I, about the wellbeing of other families.
My husband has lost his life worth of collections and has lost work having to be home to deal with the aftermath. I want people to know how dangerous we feel this is and has the potential of being. We don’t want to spend the money out of our pocket on the electrical engineer (which was advised for us to do by the cause and origin investigator) to prove what went wrong with the camera. We don’t want to fight with NEST to recover our damages and go to public form about this, but we believe if they don’t help remedy this situation, amicably and go to further measures to avoid this from happening again, then we will.
- Bought from
- Ebay
- Where
- Los Angeles, California: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Age 38, Female
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Self
- As this report names them
- Brand Drop Cam, made or sold by Nest Labs, Inc.
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Injury, Seen by Medical Professional
-
Hurt, no treatment Made Jun 30, 2012, sent to the company Jul 10, 2012, published by CPSC Aug 7, 2012
The product, in the report: DropCam HD Order Number: [REDACTED] Shipping Estimate: May 31, 2012 Subtotal of items: $446.00
Internet camera was plugged in to 110V socket as instructed by company literature. The camera got so hot that the plastic began to melt. It caused a blister when it was touched.
Order Information: E-mail Address: [REDACTED]
Order Summary: Details: Order Number: [REDACTED] Shipping Estimate: May 31, 2012 Subtotal of items: $446.00 Shipping: $0.00 ------ Total for this Order: $446.00
- Model
- DropCam HD
- Bought from
- DropCam
- Bought
- May 9, 2012
- Where
- Narragansett, Rhode Island: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Age 34, Female
- The reporter’s relation to them
- My Child
- As this report names them
- Brand DropCam, made or sold by Dropcam
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Injury, No First Aid or Medical Attention Received
CPSC’s disclaimer
Disclaimer: CPSC does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database on SaferProducts.gov, particularly with respect to information submitted by people outside of CPSC.
Word for word, from the disclaimer in CPSC’s export.
Sources
Sources
-
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, SaferProducts.gov public database export.
Released Oct 25, 2026 and checked Oct 25, 2026. Updated daily. Public domain (U.S. Government work). CPSC asks to be credited, and that no endorsement be implied.
Reports of harm are from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), on SaferProducts.gov. CPSC does not endorse Hearth Record.