- Successfully represented adidas America Inc. in arguing against certification of a class action suit alleging a defect in one of the company’s popular running shoes.
- Obtained dismissal of a class action claim premised on alleged violations of Cal. Penal Code Section 632.7, which criminalizes the recording of certain telephone calls on behalf of a global retailer of footwear and accessories.
- Counseled a cosmetic company on its response to an FDA Warning Letter related to the use of drug claims to promote cosmetic products and then assisted in the company’s implementation of internal processes and procedures to avoid similar issues in the future.
- Represented an international retailer's specialty brand in a product recall. As a result of our work on this product recall, client asked Mintz to do a complete assessment of all of its non-food product safety processes.
- Defended a consumer goods corporation in a putative class action alleging false and misleading statements on labels of various home care products, brought under New York (GBL §§ 349, 350) consumer protection laws.
- Represented a publicly traded distributor of personal care products, in California regarding Prop 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act) cases and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims. All cases have been resolved through favorable settlements approved by the court.
- Represented a New York manufacturer of consumer healthcare products under California Proposition 65 allegations, obtaining a favorable settlement for our client.
- Represented Seventh Generation, one of the nation's leading green brands, in its acquisition of Move Collective and their subsidiaries Pure Water Global and Move Collective Direct.
- Advised a national retailer in before the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in a compliance investigation, which included an onsite inspection by the CPSC.
- Represented Frette Srl., a luxury bed and bath linens company, in its acquisition by private equity firm Change Capital Partners.
- Represented an online lingerie retailer in a class action alleging that the subscription model of our client violates California Automatic Renewal Law and the Unfair Competition Law. We achieved a favorable individual settlement for the client without any motion practice. The settlement allowed them to reduce the number of cases against them and remain attractive to investors.
- Developed patent and trademark portfolio for a start-up in the consumer products space, and led company thru due diligence that ended with successful sale of the company.
- Defended a global manufacturer of over-the-counter health and beauty products in a class action alleging false and misleading statements on labels of homeopathic products, brought under California (UCL, FAL, CLRA) and Florida (FUDTPA) consumer protection laws.
- Advised a jewelry retailer and manufacturer, on its agreement to sell products through QVC, an American cable, satellite and broadcast television network specializing in televised home shopping. We negotiated a very favorable agreement for our client with QVC, protecting some of the company’s rights to distribute future products through multiple channels.
- Represented a supplier of do-it-yourself sewing, quilting, home decorating and crafts products in negotiations with the State of California regulatory agencies to limit fines and penalties in violation of the California Air Resources Board, and also Proposition 65.
- Defended Seventh Generation in a putative class action alleging false and misleading statements on labels of various home care, personal care, and baby products, brought under California (UCL, FAL, CLRA) and Florida (FUDTPA) consumer protection laws.
- Represent as lead patent counsel one of the most recognized players in the premium brands mobile phone encasement markets. Following threat from one of its largest competitors the Mintz team rapidly built a patent portfolio for products which would strengthen our client's strategic position. The allowance, and later issuance, of these patents was achieved through close and extensive interaction with the USPTO and its examiners. Those issued patents and strategically written claims positioned the client to successfully counter-sue.
Mintz advised Seventh Generation, a maker of environmentally friendly household cleaning products, from its beginnings as a catalog company through its evolution into a leading “green” company. Mintz also represented the company in its sale to Unilever.
Mintz negotiated a favorable settlement of two California state court cases for a pet food manufacturer over the company’s alleged violations of California and federal regulations related to nonfunctional slack fill.
Mintz helped a manufacturer of a regulated consumer product obtain reversal and dismissal of a CPSC order to implement a stop sale of a product and take corrective action to address an alleged violation. Mintz’s filing cited a competing interpretation of the applicable regulations.
Mintz successfully argued against certification of a federal class action suit against adidas America involving the company’s Springblade running shoes. The judge agreed that adidas did not knowingly conceal information from consumers.
Mintz obtained a voluntary dismissal of a putative class action filed in Florida against a manufacturer of products that require compliance with UL standards. Mintz’s dismissal motion noted that the defendant had no corporate or operational presence in Florida.
Mintz helped a manufacturer of household cleaning products free of harmful chemicals reach a global settlement that resolved two class actions alleging violations of New York and Illinois unfair trade practices acts regarding the use of the advertising term "natural."
Mintz helped a manufacturer and retailer of luxury skin care products negotiate a favorable agreement to sell products through a televised home shopping network. The agreement protects the company’s future rights to distribute products through multiple channels.
Mintz helped a hair products manufacturer respond to a violation notice concerning California’s proposition 65, which requires businesses to provide warnings about exposures to certain chemicals. Mintz established that the products were subject to the statute’s Safe Harbor provisions.