Hunton Retail Law Resource

As an update to our Recall Roundup’s focus on the fidget spinning craze from June and July, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) has released spinner safety tips. Although the CPSC still reports no fidget spinner recalls, Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle used the CPSC’s bully pulpit to warn of the choking dangers that result when fidget spinners break and release small pieces. In addition, she references “reports of fires involving battery-operated fidget spinners.” 

The Ninth Circuit will decide whether Great Lakes Reinsurance must defend clothing company, In and Out, against a trademark infringement suit by Forever 21. The dispute focuses on exclusionary language in the general liability policy issued by Great Lakes to In and Out, which broadly bars coverage for claims stemming from violations of intellectual property rights, but which also excepts from the exclusion claims for copyright, trade dress and slogan infringement occurring in the company's advertisements. The appeal concerns last year’s ruling by a California federal judge that Great Lakes owed a defense because the underlying complaint raised a potential that In and Out’s advertising infringed Forever 21’s trade dress.

In late May 2017, the American Law Institute met to approve the Proposed Final Draft of the first ever Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance—the culmination of over seven years of work on this project. Not surprisingly, many of the issues discussed in the Restatement have been hotly contested by insurers. The proposed Restatement is important for retail industry insureds because courts around the country may look to this new Restatement in ruling on common insurance coverage disputes arising out of product liability actions, recalls and environmental contamination. For example, some of the most hotly debated sections of the proposed Restatement include, (1) policy interpretation principles, such as when a term is deemed ambiguous; (2) the standard for determining the insurer’s duty to defend; (3) the insurer’s duty to make reasonable settlement decisions; and (4) the allocation of liability in long-tail environmental claims.

In a video roundtable series, Hunton & Williams LLP partners Lisa J. Sotto and Steven M. Haas and special counsel Allen C. Goolsby, along with Stroz Friedberg’s co-president Eric M. Friedberg and Lee Pacchia of Mimesis Law, discuss the special consideration that should be given to privacy and cybersecurity risks in corporate transactions.

Many retailers today face an increasing risk related to product recalls, which can result in extensive losses and a variety of liability claims. For example, a major supplier of meats was recently forced to recall more than seven million pounds of its product after customers found bone fragments and pieces of cartilage in their hot dogs and sausages. The large scope of this recall, and the associated challenges, is by no means unique to this company. Specialized insurance policies should provide protection to minimize most recall losses and exposure from liability claims. However, insurers often seek to rescind recall policies by asking courts to void the policies from their inception, meaning that the polices would not provide any coverage for any pending or future claims. A large number of these recall claims are being brought under New York law.

On July 26, 2017, an amusement ride named “Fire Ball” at the Ohio State Fair broke apart, killing one passenger and injuring seven others. This deadly incident may trigger a CPSC investigation into the matter.

Prior to 1981, the CPSC exercised jurisdiction over all amusement rides. But after several high-profile cases challenged the CPSC’s jurisdiction over amusement rides with mixed results, an amusement parks trade group successfully lobbied Congress to exempt stationary amusement rides from the CPSC’s jurisdiction. In 1981, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Amendments, which amended the definition of “consumer product” to explicitly exempt stationary amusement rides.

Retail developers continue to experiment with new concept designs for creating a shopping environment that will bring consumers back to brick and mortar. Along this pursuit to deliver a more attractive retail experience, developers of open-air shopping centers have started lobbying for relaxed open-container ordinances that would enable patrons to explore their retail districts with an alcoholic drink in tow. 

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding in Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services that a customer could not revoke prior express consent for purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") if that consent was provided as consideration in a binding contract. In a ruling that departs from two other circuit decisions, Gager v. Dell Fin. Servs., LLC, 727 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2013) and Osorio v. State Farm Bank F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014), the Second Circuit held that bargained-for written ...

Recently, it was reported that the UK Financial Conduct Authority will discontinue the London interbank offered rate ("LIBOR"), at the end of 2021. LIBOR is an interest rate index used in calculating floating or adjustable rates on trillions of dollars in loans, bonds, derivatives and other financial contracts. What happens under derivatives transaction documents when LIBOR is discontinued?

Read the full alert.

This past week, several consumer actions made headlines that affect the retail industry.

First Circuit Dismisses Deceptive Advertising Claims against Two Large Retailers

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has held that consumers who brought nearly identical deceptive pricing cases against two large retailers failed to prove that they had been injured. One suit alleged that one company falsely advertised “compare at” prices on sales tags; the other suit alleged that the other company deceptively set lower prices for its exclusive and private-label products and advertised them as discounted. In both cases, the plaintiffs alleged that the mere purchase of the item itself constituted injury. The First Circuit rejected this argument, observing that the consumers (1) had not alleged that the items were poorly made, (2) had received the benefits of their bargains, and (3) that a false sense of a product’s value does not constitute injury.