Hunton Retail Law Resource

The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of BBB National Programs announced an investigation into the popular kids YouTube channel “Vlad and Niki,” owned by Content Media Group FZC, LLC (CMG), which produces videos under various licensing and merchandising agreements. Because these agreements obligate CMG to produce the videos and allow CMG to share in generated revenue, CARU considers CMG an endorser of the products in Vlad and Niki videos and subject to CARU’s Self-Regulatory Guidelines for Children’s Advertising.

On May 2, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a decision ruling that initiation of an e-commerce website’s procedure to evaluate patent infringement claims subjects the initiating party to personal jurisdiction in the alleged infringer’s home state. Retailers and consumer products companies may wish to consider the possibility of ending up in federal court in a non-preferred venue prior to using one of these programs.

On May 9, 2024, the First Circuit became the first federal appellate court to address whether national retail websites’ use of session replay code creates specific personal jurisdiction for wiretapping claims allowing website users to hale retailers into court in any state where they visited these websites. The First Circuit concluded that it does not. It held that a website user failed to demonstrate that Ohio-based Bloomingdales.com intentionally targeted its website and its accompanying use of session replay software at users in Massachusetts and, therefore, failed to establish specific personal jurisdiction over Bloomingdales.com for alleged violations of the Massachusetts Wiretapping Act and Massachusetts Invasion of Privacy Statute. Rosenthal v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, No. 23-1683, 2024 WL 2074685 (1st Cir. May 9, 2024). 

The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of BBB National Programs issued a new compliance warning aimed at addressing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in advertisements and data collection efforts targeted at children. The warning emphasizes that CARU will “strictly enforce” its Advertising and Privacy Guidelines for advertisers, brands, influencers and manufacturers that utilize AI in marketing and data collection involving children. The warning specifically highlights CARU’s concerns about the risks of AI in connection with the susceptibility of children to marketing that fails to distinguish between what is real and what is not.

Development impact fees, a common tool used by local governments to fund public infrastructure and services, play a crucial role in the process of urban and suburban growth. These fees are levied on developers in conjunction with new construction or revitalization projects to offset the costs associated with increased demand for roads, schools, utilities and other amenities necessitated by development. In other words, they are used to soften the “impact” that the new development is going to bring to the infrastructure already in place.

The FTC has made its position on violations of “Made in USA” standards clear, and Williams-Sonoma received an expensive repeat reminder. On Thursday, April 25, the agency announced a settlement with the home goods retailer, directing it to pay an unprecedented civil penalty of $3.175 million for violating a 2020 FTC order requiring the company to clearly and accurately identify which products are, in fact, made in the USA. “Made in USA” denotations, as pointed out by the FTC, are more than formality: rather, to label something as “Made in USA,” the business must adhere to specific criteria – namely, that the product’s final assembly or processing, and all significant processing, takes place in the US, and that all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the US.

In January 2023, the FTC announced a proposed rule that would ban employers from imposing noncompetes on employees. After collecting over 26,000 public comments during the 90-day notice and comment period, the FTC announced a special Open Commission Meeting set to take place on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 to discuss the implications of the proposed rule. While closed to public comment, the public is still able to view the meeting via webcast. 

On April 1, 2024, California’s Assembly Bill No.1228 (“AB 1228”) took effect, making the state’s fast food workers the highest paid in the United States. However, uncertainty regarding precisely who is covered under the new law has left some employers reeling, as the stakes for complying with California’s Labor Code remain as high as ever.

In the realm of commercial leasing, the fine print of contracts can often hold significant consequences for both landlords and tenants. One area where contention often arises is with exculpatory clauses, which routinely aim to absolve landlords from responsibility for injuries or damages suffered by tenants or third parties, even if those harms result from the landlord’s negligence or failure to maintain premises adequately. However, the efficacy of exculpatory clauses becomes blurred when confronted with hazards such as asbestos, a notorious carcinogen found in many older commercial buildings, including some retail properties.

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is often touted as the latest transformative technology set to revolutionize the commercial real estate industry. This may seem like grandstanding, but the hype is real. AI is already being implemented by law firms and their clients to streamline business processes. AI, however, is ultimately a tool and whether tools make our lives easier or harder often depends on if we use them safely. This blog post examines some of the ways in which AI is used in commercial real estate and potential pitfalls with broad implementation.