Skip to main content

Retail & Consumer Products

Viewpoints

Filter by:

Commissioner Elliot Kaye recently released a framework, which he co-authored with his Senior Science and Policy Advisor, Dr. Jonathan Midgett, that provides an “overview of technology-neutral best practices to ensure consumer product safety in the design and deployment of devices, software and systems used with the Internet-connected consumer products.” This framework should prove useful to consumer product companies as they navigate the burgeoning world of IoT devices.
Viewpoint
Now in its fifth week, the partial government shutdown has left many companies wondering what to do about recalls for consumer products. Generally, consumer product companies work in coordination with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) when conducting recalls. But like other affected agencies, the CPSC is currently operating with only its essential staff members, which is about 20 or fewer employees.
As has been widely reported, in May 2018, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that Prop 65 warning labels are required to be placed on “ready-to-drink” coffee products. Acrylamide, a Prop 65 listed chemical that allegedly is a carcinogen, forms during the coffee roasting process. 
One week after a San Francisco jury decided against Monsanto and awarded a plaintiff $289 million due to the alleged exposure that caused his cancer, the California Supreme Court refused to hear any further challenges by Monsanto.
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia released its highly anticipated decision in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, courts have been addressing issues raised in that case. We previously summarized the opinion — which raises four issues, one of which is what constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”).
The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) is busy evaluating scores of comments and reply comments it received in several ongoing TCPA proceedings in the past month.
On July 1, 2018, California’s revised Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq., goes into effect.
Recently, a federal judge sitting in the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), for the first time, refused to require a manufacturer to place a Prop 65 warning on its product based on a finding that the requirement would violate the company’s First Amendment rights. We have been following this developing issue for some time.
The consumer product safety community is rarely provided guidance by federal court decisions. On Tuesday, however, Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado issued an opinion in the never-ending saga of Zen Magnets, LLC v. CPSC.
Our previous post discussed the decision in Marshall v. CBE Group, Inc., which completely rejected the FCC’s broad interpretation of an ATDS and found in favor of the defendant. Since then, another district court in the Ninth Circuit has followed suit, but three others in the Eleventh Circuit have concluded that the FCC’s 2003 Order survives ACA Int’l. It could behoove some TCPA defendants to seek stays while this circuit split is sorted out or until after the FCC clarifies its position on the ATDS issue following ACA Int’l.
The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is reconsidering several issues central to TCPA liability, including what equipment constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system ((“ATDS”) and who the “called party” is when a wireless number has been reassigned.
The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is reconsidering several issues central to TCPA liability, including what equipment constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system ((“ATDS”) and who the “called party” is when a wireless number has been reassigned.
Fresh off a victory in the CA primary, California Attorney General Xavier Bacerra filed suit on June 7, 2018 against Nutraceutical Corporation of Park City, Utah and Graceleigh, Inc. dba Sammy’s Milk of Newport Beach, CA, alleging violations of California’s Proposition 65 and California’s consumer protection laws.
As this space has addressed before (see here and here), the California Transparency in Supply Chain Act (Civ. Code section 1714.43), enacted in 2010, requires large retailers and manufacturers (those with worldwide sales in excess of $100 million) doing business in California to disclose on their websites.
Yesterday, President Donald Trump nominated Peter Feldman to fill the fifth and final spot as Commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Prop 65: GET THE LEAD OUT!

May 29, 2018| Blog

As this space has discussed on several occasions, there are many issues with California's Prop 65.
Yesterday the U.S. Senate confirmed Dana Baiocco (pronounced “Bee Awe Co”) as a Commissioner for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission with a term that runs through October of 2024.
The North American Numbering Council (NANC), a federal advisory committee established by the FCC, delivered a call authentication report to the FCC on May 3. The report was developed by the Call Authentication Trust Anchor Working Group (CATA WG) and approved by NANC on April 27. It “details a framework for call authentication that can more quickly be established than various alternatives, while obtaining the broadest participation of industry.”
Every month, robocalls make up the majority of Do Not Call registry complaints at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FCC estimated that in March 2018 approximately 3 billion robocalls were placed. In an effort to combat these illegal robocalls, the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Energy & Commerce Committee each held a hearing regarding these illegal robocalls and asked witnesses for ideas on how to combat this rampant problem.

Comments on the FCC’s Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) are due on June 7, and replies are due by July 9. The second FNPRM was adopted at the March Commission Meeting and seeks input on the adoption of a reassigned numbers database that businesses could check to avoid making unwanted calls to a new subscriber whose number was previously assigned to a consumer who had consented to receiving their calls.

Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: