Retail & Consumer Products

In addition to truthful and non-misleading advertising requirements, which are enforced by the FTC and certainly familiar to readers of this blog, personal care and cosmetic products are also subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and may run afoul of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the agency).

This week we welcomed Joanne S. Hawana to our FDA and Health Law practices. Joanne represents clients in the food, drug, medical device, and biotechnology industries on issues ranging from prescription drug advertising to state licensing requirements for wholesale distribution.  

On April 7, Renee Dudley of Bloomberg News authored an article entitled “The Cheap Toys You Buy Your Kid Are Rarely Inspected.”

Over the past year, we have blogged about the CPSC’s rulemaking process to regulate high-powered magnet sets via a safety standard as well as the administrative complaints brought by the agency to force multiple companies (e.g., Buckyballs and Zen Magnets) to recall certain magnetic products deemed to be defective by CPSC staff. 

Recent attempts to modify California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Proposition 65, have been the work of the California Legislature. 

his space has addressed on several occasions, recent attempts to modify California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65.

Another potentially meaningful development in legislation affecting consumer products companies: on February 25, a California legislator introduced a bill, AB 708, that would require manufacturers, distributors and retailers to disclose all "chemical" ingredients for designated consumer products "manufactured from chemicals or chemical compounds."

Coming on the heels of the reintroduction of the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, on March 3, 2015, the New York State Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection voted 9 to 6, with one abstention, to pass bill A.617, which would require food made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled as such.

Last year, we wrote about legislative efforts on Capitol Hill to require the CPSC to implement a rule requiring childproof packaging for liquid nicotine containers.

Last week, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore)--joined by chef-lebrity Tom Colicchio--announced the reintroduction of The Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, a federal bill that would mandate the labeling of foods or beverages containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). 

In part two of this two-part series, we explore two critical takeaways for those facing potential government intervention: (1) the implications of the Court’s deference to the Commission, and (2) whether a substantive disclaimer is a silver bullet to avoid agency scrutiny (or, at least, an agency win).

In this first post of a two-part series, we take a closer look at last Friday's decision in POM Wonderful v. FTC by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which has meaningful implications for how companies advertise their products' health benefits to consumers.

Last Sunday, during the Super Bowl, Nationwide Insurance ran a controversial commercial entitled “Make Safe Happen.”  The advertisement features a young child experiencing memorable moments growing up.  However, viewers are informed that the child would not actually experience these moments because he “died from an accident.” 

A vote by European Union (EU) lawmakers in mid-January gave individual governments within the 28-nation bloc the authority to decide whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be grown and cultivated within their borders. 

Do local governments, such as town councils and county legislatures, have a role in regulating consumer products that is typically reserved for the federal and state governments?

As this space has discussed, Proposition 65 has been the subject of attempts by the California Legislature to reform the enforcement of the law.

Following an ABC 20/20 investigative story where CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye called Craigslist's failure to block the sale of recalled products "morally irresponsible," the agency announced yesterday that it has entered into an agreement with the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba Group (“Alibaba”) to stop the sale of products recalled by the CPSC to U.S. consumers.

On January 5, 2015, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that Gerber Legendary Blades, a division of Fiskars Brands Inc., has agreed to pay a $2.6 million civil penalty to resolve charges that it knowingly failed to immediately report to the CPSC a safety hazard associated with its Gator Combo Axe. 

In our continuing efforts to highlight litigation trends that affect consumer product companies, we often focus on class actions brought in California and, especially, its federal Northern District. 

Significant portions of the New York Nonprofit Revitalization Act (the “Revitalization Act” or the “Act”) went into effect in 2014. The Act represents the first overhaul in more than 40 years of laws applicable to nonprofit organizations that are incorporated and operate or solicit charitable contributions in the State of New York.