From Rangers to roll-ons — the impact of product recalls

The simultaneous recall of 5,676 Ford Ranger Wildtrak, Tremor and Platinum vehicles, alongside more than 124,176 Mitchum roll-on deodorants, is more than a bulletin. 

It is a stress test of South Africa’s corporate accountability and consumer protection framework. When a product fails – whether a vehicle’s braking system or a personal care item causing skin reactions – it forces businesses to confront their core obligations: safety, transparency and consumer trust.

On 15 September 2025, the National Consumer Commission (NCC) stepped into that role, notifying the public of both recalls. Ford’s recall of 2025 and 2026 model Rangers stems from a possible loss of the brake-boost feature, requiring “increased pedal effort to brake the vehicle” and thereby “increasing the risk of an accident”. Separately, Mitchum’s manufacturer told the NCC that a change in raw material acidity caused contact dermatitis in some users, particularly those with sensitive skin.

These recalls – one in the high-stakes automotive sector, the other in fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) – offer a compact case study in risk, reputation and regulatory response. They also illustrate the broader business consequences: recalls carry direct costs for logistics, replacement stock and supply chain disruption, while repeated quality failures can dent investor confidence and affect share prices.

The automotive gauntlet: Ford, exports and credibility

For Ford, the stakes are high. South Africa’s auto sector is a major exporter and a yardstick for manufacturing quality. A defect in a safety-critical system immediately raises questions about production integrity and quality control.

Consumer law specialist Trudie Broekmann says a recall is a blunt accountability tool. Where a product presents a “significant risk of causing the consumer an injury or illness or even death, such as is the case with a vehicle where a safety aspect such as the braking system is affected”, she advises consumers to consider insisting on a refund rather than a repair, especially if a full remedy is uncertain.

The episode revives memories of the Ford Kuga fires in 2017, a turning point that intensified regulatory scrutiny when initial repairs were reportedly ineffective. 

Read more: When lives are cheaper than financial losses: Ford Pinto’s chilling lesson

Rebuilding credibility now requires not only swift technical fixes, but clear respect for consumer rights. 

The FMCG gauntlet: Mitchum and brand trust

While the Ford recall highlights high-value manufacturing and export implications, the Mitchum case shows how even routine consumer products carry real business risks. Logistics, refunds and brand damage can ripple across retailers and suppliers, emphasising that quality control matters at every level.

The Mitchum recall – more than 124,000 affected units – illustrates a different, but no less urgent, challenge: keeping trust in everyday goods. Irritation from a deodorant may not be life-threatening, but it breaks the basic promise of personal care brands: do no harm.

Broekmann stresses that companies are judged not by perfection but by the quality of their response. “If there’s swift action to make good, and a sincere apology, consumers’ brand trust can actually grow.” Advising consumers to stop using affected batches and offering full refunds aligns with standard FMCG redress; the NCC will watch whether suppliers make that process simple and visible.

Consumer rights and the NCC’s role

NCC spokesperson Phetho Ntaba says past crises such as the Kuga fires and the Tiger Brands listeriosis outbreak pushed the regulator to be more proactive. Those events “highlighted the critical importance of a proactive and decisive regulatory framework”, she says, adding that the NCC now emphasises “immediate action, transparency, holding companies accountable and public advocacy”.

Under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and NCC recall guidelines, suppliers must notify the NCC immediately once a defect is identified and must offer consumers a refund, replacement or repair. Yet gaps persist. Broekmann notes that firms often default to a single remedy – repair for vehicles, refund for FMCG – and rarely provide full transparency about how many consumers respond. Ntaba flags a practical hurdle: reaching owners of secondhand vehicles or products sold through informal markets prolongs recalls and increases risk.

Strengthening enforcement

“South Africa’s consumer protection laws are among the world’s most advanced,” Broekmann says. Ntaba stresses that unsafe products “must be removed from the hands of the consumer”. Both, however, see room to tighten practice and enforcement. Ntaba says the NCC is considering proposing industry-wide codes of practice to formalise recall management. 

Broekmann points out that penalties – up to 10% of annual turnover or R10m, whichever is greater– are high but underused; in 2019, Ford South Africa paid a R35-million administrative penalty and provided compensation (R50 000 per qualifying consumer) for affected Kuga owners, a reminder that enforcement can carry a real financial sting.

The Ford and Mitchum recalls confirm that the system can compel companies to accept liability and act. But the ultimate measure of success is not the announcement of a recall; it is the speed and effectiveness with which all 5,676 Ford owners and 124,176 Mitchum consumers are protected. As the NCC moves towards stronger regulations, consumer trust remains fragile – a resource companies must rebuild with every repair, refund and replacement. DM