State Consumer Protection Laws

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…

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 their…

As this space has discussed on several occasions, there are many issues with California’s Prop 65 (check out some of my prior posts about unintended consequences here and here). In full disclosure, most of the issues I discuss here are presented from the viewpoint of businesses that find…

A recent Federal Court decision on the issue of whether to grant a preliminary injunction in the ongoing saga of the appropriateness of adding the pesticide Glyphosate to the CA Prop 65 list (see prior posts, here and here) has become the grist for the “Fake News” phenomenon.…

Much of the recent discussion regarding Prop 65 has been focused on the regulatory changes going into effect in August of 2018. And that makes sense since there will be significant changes to the warnings, responsibility, and labeling obligations on product websites. There is, however, other activity that…

California’s Safe Drinking Water & Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (affectionately known as “Proposition 65”) has long been the subject of discussion, both pro and con. Much of the conversation is on various issues surrounding the enforcement of Proposition 65 (for example, see a prior post here). In…

We have had a huge election result, perhaps the most significant in our lifetime, potentially even exceeding what was called the Reagan Revolution. It is critical, particularly for anybody from Washington DC, to have a great deal of modesty and humility in prognosticating the future under the Trump…

“…Clowns to the right of me, jokers to the left, here I am…”

Last month, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) adopted new Proposition 65 warning regulations. Much of the discussions regarding these new regulations have centered on the warning requirements that become effective, after an approximately two-year phase-in period, in August 2018.

Earlier this month, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) issued a Notice of Emergency Action to allow temporary use of a standard point-of-sale warning message for bisphenol A (“BPA”) exposures from canned and bottled foods and beverages. This emergency rulemaking came only three weeks before California’s…

Allegations are increasing against The Honest Company, Inc. for false and misleading marketing of its products as “all natural” and “plant-based” when they supposedly contain synthetic ingredients. The Honest Company sells personal care, cleaning, and baby products in multiple channels including at retail, online and through consumer subscriptions.…

We recently blogged about a new wave of class action litigation related to California’s Transparency in Supply Chains Act. In December, Nestlé USA won the dismissal of a complaint against it alleging that the company was “obligated to inform consumers that some proportion of its cat food products…

Our colleagues Michael Arnold and Gauri Punjabi recently discussed the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of the Federal Rule 68 “pick off” strategy on Mintz Levin’s Employment Matters Blog. We previously blogged about this crafty strategy employed by class-action defense counsel back in November 2014. Following the recent Campbell-Ewald…

Last year, we wrote about a growing trend of local jurisdictions regulating children’s products, primarily toys and apparel. One such jurisdiction, Albany County, NY, enacted a far-reaching ordinance, “Local Law J of 2014,” that prohibited the sale of children’s products containing seven chemicals of “high concern” (see previous…

The first round goes to the industry: on December 9, 2015, the Central District of California dismissed the complaint in Barber v. Nestle USA, a key bellwether case in a new wave of class action litigation related to California’s Transparency in Supply Chains Act. The Barber plaintiffs’ theory…

On December 2, 2015, the Grocery Manufacturers Association announced SmartLabel, a pioneering technology initiative that gives manufacturers and retailers an important new channel for disclosing information about their products directly to consumers. Through SmartLabel, simply by searching online or scanning the bar code on a product’s label, consumers…

A courtroom battle concerning a manufacturer’s alleged false marketing of allegedly foreign-produced products as “Made in USA” is potentially nearing a resolution. On November 30, 2015, the lead plaintiff in Paz v. AG Adriano Goldschmied, Inc. et al. asked the court for preliminary approval of a $4 million…

The International Campaign Against Microbeads in Cosmetics is most likely celebrating this week, following the California State Legislature’s passage of a bill that would prohibit the use of plastic microbeads in personal care products after January 1, 2020. The bill, AB 888, now heads to Governor Jerry Brown’s…

The proposed Federal regulation of GMOs is proceeding. Following the White House’s recent action on GMOs, Representative Pompeo’s “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act” (H.R. 1599) was passed by the House Agriculture Committee on July 14.

The “toxic trio” is a foreboding name some associate with common and seemingly innocuous manicures and pedicures. Salon workers suffer higher-than-average rates of birth defects, miscarriages, cancers, and skin afflictions stemming from their daily use of nail products, many of which contain potentially harmful chemicals. A New York…

[This article originally appeared on Law360.com on June 23, 2015.]

Despite a stiff litigation challenge from the food industry, Vermont’s GMO-labeling campaign marches on. This week saw major developments in the suit brought by the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association and other food industry groups challenging the constitutionality of Vermont’s GMO-labeling law, Act 120. Each side won an important victory…

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). The bill is…

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. The…

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? Apparently, the legislature and executive of Albany County, New York believe that they do.

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. The Northern District of California has come to be nicknamed the “Food Court,” and with good reason: the district is…

As we’ve explored in past posts, Congress is currently considering a bill that aims to harmonize the patchwork of state efforts at regulating GMO labeling by placing such regulation firmly within FDA’s jurisdiction. Dubbed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (H.R. 4432), this bill would give FDA…

In recent years, we’ve noticed a new maneuver that class-action defense counsel have increasingly added to their playbooks: The Pick Off. This is how the play is run: Offer the named plaintiff(s) full relief through a Rule 68 offer of judgment and, even if the plaintiff(s) reject the…

As we’ve explored in past posts, mandatory GMO-labeling legislation has, at best, a spotty track record among state legislatures. Nevertheless, the GMO issue continues to draw the public’s attention, and it is becoming clear that the “Non-GMO” label now appeals to at least certain segments of the consumer…

In April 2010, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) sued Starbucks Corp. and other coffee sellers alleging they violated California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, passed by California voters in 1986 as Proposition 65, by failing to warn consumers about carcinogens in their…

In June, we reported on a suit brought by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (“GMA”) seeking to rescind Vermont’s new GMO-labeling statute, Act 120. As we explained in that post, the GMA argues that Act 120 is doubly unconstitutional: not only does the law violate the Commerce and Supremacy…

Last week, the California Supreme Court granted review of Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc. to resolve a split in the Second Appellate District regarding the application of California’s component parts doctrine. The component parts doctrine stands for the proposition that a company that manufactures component parts cannot be…

Last week, a California federal judge revived a putative class action accusing Amy’s Kitchen Inc. of misleading customers by labeling sugar as “evaporated cane juice” on its products. In a finding that puts the case on hold until the FDA weighs in, Judge Illston found that a decision…

In April, we wrote about the Vermont legislature’s approval of a bill that would require manufacturers to change the retail labels of certain foods to indicate that they are GMO. On May 8, 2014, Vermont enacted the final version of this bill, now Act 120, which requires manufacturers…

Mintz Levin recently published a Litigation Alert titled The Case That Could Significantly Disrupt How Companies Manage Their Gift Card Programs and Could Create Billions of Dollars in Exposure. This Alert analyzes a recently unsealed qui tam complaint filed in Delaware, and should be essential reading for any…

In January and April, this space took a look at the growing patchwork of state proposals for regulating the labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs). As posited here in April, the recent surge in such bills raises a serious question as to whether any individual state—especially…

In January, this space discussed the Maine and Connecticut laws that would require labeling for foods made with genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs). Each of the bills had a trigger qualification: 4 other states, or states with a combined population of 20 million, had to adopt similar measures. In…

Recently, we have informed our readers of product safety legislative and regulatory initiatives, including green chemistry programs, driven at the state level. One of these important state regulatory initiatives is California’s Green Chemistry Initiative. California’s “Safer Consumer Products” regulations seek to reduce toxic chemicals in consumer products by…

Not to be left behind and not dependent on any other state action (Connecticut and Maine notwithstanding), a bill has been introduced (SB 1381) on February 21, 2014 that requires any food, with certain exceptions (more on that later), offered for retail sale in California to be labeled…

A growing number of states are passing Green Chemistry laws, e.g.; California, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington State. These laws present a challenge to manufacturers who distribute and sell products into the 50 states.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”

A question before district courts these days seems to be whether 100% natural molasses move any slower than the FDA. In July, the Food Court in the Northern District of California asked FDA to opine on the proper use and application of “whether and under what circumstances food…

The role of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in product liability cases is often a two-sided coin. Evidence of a recall is sometimes allowed to establish notice of a defect though the standard to invoke a recall of a product is not the same as proving a…

In what may be an indication of things to come, the Food Court (US District Court Northern District of California) has decided to ask FDA for guidance on what it wants on food labels. The Food Court directly addressed the labeling of foods containing GMOs as “natural” in…

Are you for or against GMOs? Do you think the government should get involved? Whether for or against legislation requiring labeling showing any Genetically Modified Organism contained in your food, the fact that the two sides are diametrically opposed on interpretation of critical aspects will ensure litigation. In…

It’s 2 o’clock in the afternoon, you need a snack – maybe a granola bar, but which one? Does the package that boasts it is “100% Natural” win out over the one that is only “All Natural”? Would you even consider one that is merely “Natural”? Well, don’t…