Crazy how these companies survive without safety certifications :\
I'm a lawyer, and I used to do a lot of defense of manufacturers in product liability claims.
Certification isn't required for some sales (depends on how and where the company is selling). And certification won't shield a company from liability.
With that said, we used to give clients the following advice:
1. If you sell enough stuff, and if it can presents any potential hazard, you'll eventually be sued. It doesn't even have to be for your product. We defended a bunch of fire cases where the fire started somewhere else. But our client's product was nearby, so that would be a target. (Often, the fires started in damaged extension cords. But it's often impossible to identify the manufacturer or seller of the cord, so plaintiffs' lawyers will sue someone with an identifiable product that's plugged into the extension cord.)
2. If you're sued, you need to be able to show that you (a) identified potential risks and (b) tried to design out any such risks. If you can't eliminate the risk by using an alternate design, then you guard against the risk. Finally, you warn about the risk, using appropriate warnings (where needed, when needed, etc.). We used to say that companies needed to create a "safety story." You don't want to create your safety story after the fact. Do it beforehand, and document it thoroughly.
In regard to these cables, I'm a bit concerned by the overlength ground pin. It seems possible that a user could insert the plug partway, resulting in a high-resistance connection at one of the other pins. And that could cause overheating and a subsequent fire.
If you look at outlets in enough houses, you'll see some that are a bit scorched, generally as a result of a high-resistance connection caused by partial insertion of a plug. (Sometimes the scorching is caused by a high-resistance connection in the male end of the cord.) And that's why, if your outlet starts feeling a bit sloppy, you should replace it.
(That sounds a bit . . . well . . .)
