Hunton Retail Law Resource

The practice of incorporating use restrictions in leases is common by retailers to protect their investments in new stores and improvements to existing stores. However, retailers should consider both property and antitrust issues when drafting and enforcing use provisions of a lease. In addition, use restrictions could be used by disgruntled potential tenants as fodder for litigation if the terms have the effect of excluding tenants from prime locations.

Civil penalties continue to serve as a reminder that noncompliance with the Consumer Product Safety Act can be costly. A major retailer agreed to pay a $3.8 million penalty for failure to implement an internal compliance program for the distribution and sale of recalled products. The retailer sold about 600 recalled products over a five-year period, a pattern of behavior that continued even after informing the CPSC that measures were in place to reduce this risk.

The American Tort Reform Association recently released the 2016–2017 edition of its “Judicial Hellholes” report. This annual report identifies venues it deems least favorable for civil defendants based on recent decisions and verdicts, as well as state laws and policies.

This past week, several consumer actions made headlines:

VW and the FTC Agree in Principle on Settlement to Compensate Consumers

FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez issued the following statement regarding the announcement of nearly completed agreements resolving the EPA’s Clean Air Act claims and consumer injury claims against Volkswagen:

In August 2016, the Supreme Court of California issued its decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, which – as detailed more fully in our earlier post – features an expansive interpretation of specific personal jurisdiction that is difficult to reconcile with the U.S. Supreme Court’s general personal jurisdiction decisions in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). Those decisions significantly limited the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over defendant corporations to their state of incorporation and principal place of business unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. 

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

FTC Actions

FTC Settles Charges Against Marketer of Blood Pressure App

The FTC settled charges against a marketer of a blood pressure app called “Instant Blood Pressure.” According to the complaint, Aura Labs deceptively claimed that its app could use consumers’ phones to measure blood pressure as accurately as a traditional blood pressure cuff. In addition, the FTC alleges that the company’s founder left “five-star” reviews of the app in the Apple App Store without disclosing his connection with the company.

On December 12, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced a summary decision against California Naturel, Inc., holding that advertising sunscreen as “all natural” violates Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act because 8 percent of the product is comprised of the synthetic ingredient dimethicone. 

As with other areas of the law, the recent presidential election will present both challenges and opportunities for retailers concerned with financial and securities regulation. While President-elect Trump did not articulate his views on financial services regulation on the campaign trail in any detailed manner, he did suggest that the Dodd-Frank Act should be repealed as it has increased costs for businesses, impeded economic growth and severely reduced lending without any clear benefits to investors or consumers.

On December 8, 2016, four major retailers were accused of unfair competition and false advertising under California law. According to complaints filed by the City of Los Angeles in California state court, J.C. Penney, Kohl’s, Macy’s and Sears have each misrepresented the regular retail price of thousands of goods in an effort to make consumers believe the items are available at steeper discounts than actually being offered.

This past week, several consumer and self-regulatory actions made headlines that affect the retail industry.

Court Dismisses ‘Made in USA’ Claims against Citizens of Humanity

A California federal judge dismissed claims against Citizens of Humanity alleging that it falsely labeled its products as “Made in the USA.” While plaintiffs alleged that the fabric, thread, buttons and other components were foreign-made, the court found that this was not enough to satisfy California’s standard, allowing the use of “Made in the USA” labels on products containing 5 to 10 percent of foreign materials. Significantly, the court applied the 5 to 10 percent standard found in the California rule despite the fact that the products at issue had been purchased prior to the rule’s enactments. The court also dismissed claims under the Unfair Competition Law and California Legal Remedies Act, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity.