Consumer Product Safety

In this blog we often discuss products being subjected to a lawsuit based on allegations that a label is false or misleading under California’s consumer protection laws. 

Earlier this year we began a series of blog entries to update our readers on legislative efforts on Capitol Hill that affect stakeholders within the product safety arena.

We do not typically take positions on product specific issues pending before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”), but the CPSC’s new safety standard for magnet sets demonstrates both why the agency exists and how it can use its regulatory authority to protect consumers.

This space has thoroughly explored the various forms of civil liability food companies face for the mislabeling and/or deceptive marketing of their products.

A recent federal decision has made clear that court-ordered recalls can have real teeth, not just for manufacturers but also their officers—especially when the court has reason to suspect a company’s execs are deliberately dragging their feet.

On August 26, 2014, the FDA issued draft guidance to address “controlled correspondence,” which is the correspondence that generic drug manufacturers submit to the FDA to request information and to clarify issues related to generic drug development, and the FDA’s procedure for responding to such correspondence. 

Although the final rule currently under consideration by the CPSC sets a performance standard for magnet sets, the practical effect of the new safety standard will be a ban on the future sale or distribution of powerful rare earth magnet sets like Buckyballs and Zen Magnets.

Throughout the year, this space has periodically re-visited the topic of regulating the manufacture and labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) at the state and federal level.

In the wake of the tragic drowning of Virginia Graeme Baker, the granddaughter of former Secretary of State James Baker, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act.

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.

Two years ago, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) took the uncommon step of filing administrative complaints against multiple rare-earth magnet companies who refused to voluntarily recall magnetic adult desk toy products deemed to be defective by CPSC staff.

Earlier this evening, the U.S. Senate confirmed Elliot Kaye as the new CPSC Chairman and Joe Mohorovic as a new Commissioner of the agency. Once Kaye and Mohorovic are officially sworn in this week, the Commission will be fully constituted with five Commissioners.

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced on the Senate Floor (video clip below) that the Senate will consider and vote on the nominations of Elliot Kaye and Joe Mohorovic on Monday, July 28th.

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 House of Representatives is currently considering H.R. 5016, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2015, which provides funding to many different parts of the federal government for the next fiscal year.

Today the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee approved three pending nominations for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

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.

On June 27, 2014, Judge Claude M. Hilton of the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the complaint filed against the power tool industry by SawStop, LLC. We previously wrote about this lawsuit and the need for companies and trade associations to develop sound legal policies and procedures to avoid antitrust lawsuits last month.

We previously wrote about the recent 4th Circuit decision that ordered the unsealing of a district court opinion siding with a manufacturer who challenged a product safety report the CPSC planned to post on its Saferproducts.gov public database.

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.