Consumer Product Safety

As this space has pointed out on several occasions, California’s laws are nothing, if not unique.  One such law is California’s Business & Professions Code Section 12606.2 which prohibits a container or package from having false bottoms, false sidewalls, a false lid or covering or to “facilitate the perpetration of deception or fraud”. 

While perhaps not as far down the rabbit hole as Alice was, the Courts within the Northern District of California are decidedly split on whether to use the primary jurisdiction doctrine to stay food cases with “natural” claims. 

The CPSC is considering whether to issue an interpretative rule (to be included as part of 16 CFR 1115) that would significantly alter the way in which voluntary recalls and corrective action plans (CAPs) are conducted. 

California is one of the largest consumer markets in the United States.   When it comes to environmental regulations, California can be the tail that wags the dog. It is not difficult for manufacturers, importers and retailers to inadvertently run afoul of California’s comprehensive environmental regulations.  Those regulations just got a little more comprehensive.

We recently wrote about CPSC’s proposed amendment to its current limitations on CPSC staff’s participation in voluntary standards organizations. Under the proposed amendment, staff would be allowed to cast votes on voluntary standards and hold leadership positions on voluntary standard committees.

My experiences at CPSC during the 2011 and 2012 “shutdown showdowns” are hard to forget. We spent a considerable amount of time preparing for a potential shuttering of the agency because of the very strict nature of the Anti-Deficiency Act when it comes to which employees qualify as “excepted” or “essential.”

Demi Lovato’s hit song “Made in the USA” recounts how her love for her boyfriend is both amazing and patriotic.  If they had fallen in love in Paris or Acapulco, however, she may be facing an enforcement action by the FTC or a lawsuit in California under Business & Professions Code 17200 for false advertising.

Readers of our blog tend to pay a lot of attention to federal and state product safety developments for obvious reasons.

I used to jokingly tell people that when I moved from design engineering into the law I went from the most productive field in the world to the most counter-productive field. 

This week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) will decide whether to hold a full Commission hearing to receive oral comments on a notice of proposed rulemaking on magnet set safety. 

In the ongoing California battle over lawsuits against food companies alleging false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs claims are judged by the “reasonable consumer” test, in which plaintiffs must show that the public is likely to be deceived by the labeling or advertising. 

Mintz Levin’s Consumer Product Safety practice is honored to welcome Commissioner Robert Adler as a guest speaker in an upcoming webinar to discuss the trajectory of CPSC enforcement trends and proactive steps your company can take to prevent becoming the subject of CPSC enforcement actions.

Last week, CPSC staff proposed an amendment to the agency's current voluntary standards rule that would allow Commission employees to participate as voting members and to accept leadership positions in voluntary standard development groups.

A question before district courts these days seems to be whether 100% natural molasses move any slower than the FDA.

Two weeks ago, this space discussed the CA Prop 65 reform proposed by Governor Brown and its remote chances of success. 

CPSC’s longtime Deputy Director of Compliance & Field Operations, Marc Schoem, is now leading the agency’s Office of Education, Global Outreach, and Small Business Ombudsman.

he 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 design, manufacturing or failure to warn claim in a court of law.

The FTC’s recent settlements with three mattress companies send a message to all companies making “VOC Free” (volatile organic compounds) and similar environmental or “green” claims.

It would no doubt be helpful to present a jury with information of how plaintiff was driving too fast in choppy water before being thrown from a boat or how the plaintiff allowed lint to collect in the exhaust duct before a fire in the dryer caused property damage.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced recently that it stopped 4.8 million units of products at multiple ports of entry that violated product safety rules or were deemed to be hazardous.