Hunton Retail Law Resource

On June 28, 2016, in two related settlements, German auto-manufacturer, Volkswagen AG (“VW”), has agreed to pay $14.7 billion to resolve allegations that the company cheated diesel emissions tests for nearly 500,000 2.0 liter diesel vehicles sold over six years. One settlement partially resolves EPA allegations for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act’s federal emissions standard; the other partially resolves FTC claims that VW violated the FTC Act by deceptively and unfairly advertising its “clean diesel” vehicles. VW also will pay damages to 44 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The announced settlements do not resolve pending civil claims concerning VW’s 3.0 liter diesel vehicles, or potential criminal liability.

This past week, several consumer protection and regulatory actions made headlines:

FTC Issues Closing Letter in Bedrock “Made in USA” Labeling Investigation

On June 16, 2016, the FTC issued a closing letter in its investigation of Bedrock Manufacturing Company, the parent of Filson and Shinola. The FTC had raised concerns regarding Bedrock’s unqualified use of the phrases “Made in USA” and “Built in USA.” Despite using these labels, many of Shinola and Filson’s products were made with materials mostly or entirely sourced from outside of the US. The FTC closed its investigation as a result of Bedrock’s self-imposed corrective actions, including replacing hangtags and information cards for various products, updating employee training materials and advertising materials, and changing labelling integrated on the products themselves.

On June 22, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with Singaporean-based mobile advertising network, InMobi, resolving charges that the company had deceptively tracked hundreds of millions of consumers’ locations, including children, without their knowledge or consent. Among other things, the settlement orders the company to pay $950,000 in civil penalties. 

On June 21, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission settled claims against the purveyors of the “Doctor Trusted” seal certification program. The FTC’s action was against defendants SmartClick Media LLC, d/b/a Doctor Trusted, and the company’s owner. According to the FTC’s complaint, defendants marketed the “Doctor Trusted” certification and seal to health-related websites claiming that it was “one of the most effective ways to increase sales with the least amount of effort.” Despite representing to consumers that websites carrying the Doctor Trusted seal were “carefully evaluated by an independent medical doctor who reviewed its medical information, claims, products, terms of service, and policies,” the FTC alleged that the certification review was a sham. In fact, the Doctor Trusted review process consisted of two freelance physicians who only gave a cursory review of member websites, with no scientific evaluation of the sites’ health claims.

This past week, several consumer protection and regulatory actions made headlines:

Once You Pop, the Suit Can’t Stop: 7-Eleven Chip Labeling Suit Begins Again

On June 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a proposed class action alleging that plaintiffs were misled by 7-Eleven’s potato chip bags, claiming they had no trans-fat or cholesterol. The lead plaintiff in the case claimed that he relied on the front-of-package labeling and would not have purchased the chips had the front also included the FDA-mandated, “See nutrition information for fat content,” disclosure. Importantly, the Ninth Circuit’s holding clarified that California’s consumer protection statute makes misleading statements actionable, even if they are not “technically false.” Plaintiffs allege that 7-Eleven’s attempts to gain a market advantage by a half-truth claim misled customers nationwide.

This week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Litigation

Claims Dismissed in San Francisco Soda Suit

A federal judge dismissed several constitutional claims in a suit against the city of San Francisco over its ban on ads for sugary drinks, because the ordinance has since been repealed. Both San Francisco and the plaintiffs, including the American Beverage Association and other trade groups, asked the judge to dismiss the free speech and due process violation claims from the original complaint. Although the advertising component of the ordinance was repealed in December, the suit continues over a new ordinance, set to take effect on July 25, 2016, that requires ads for soda and other sugary drinks to display a mandatory health warning. The judge previously declined to enjoin the ordinance, saying that it was not likely for the plaintiffs to succeed on their First Amendment claim under the rational basis test for commercial speech.

This week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Teavana Settles with Consumer Product Safety Commission

Teavana, a Starbucks-owned tea retailer, settled allegations with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) that Starbucks failed to report complaints of exploded tea tumblers. The settlement split the Commission on a company’s obligation to report complaints to the agency. Commissioner Joseph P. Mohorovic, who opposed the settlement with its $3.75 million civil penalty, said that Teavana did not have a clear obligation to report the complaints saying, “The [Consumer Product Safety Act] and our rules under it do not establish a clear line for when a company must report, but at best blurred zone of indecision.”

This past week, several consumer protection and regulatory actions made headlines:

FTC to Host Consumer Disclosure Workshop in September

The Federal Trade Commission has announced that it will be hosting a September 15, 2016 workshop, “Putting Disclosures to the Test,” on the efficacy and costs of consumer disclosures in advertising and in privacy policies. Planned discussion topics include examining disclosures meant to avoid deception in advertising, disclosures designed to inform consumers of data tracking, and industry-specific disclosures for jewelry, environmental and fuel-saving claims. The workshop is open to the public and will take place at the FTC’s Constitution Center offices in Washington, D.C. The FTC currently is soliciting presentation proposals for the workshop; submissions may be sent to disclosuretesting@ftc.gov.

This past week, the National Advertising Division (“NAD”) of the BBB issued a number of opinions and recommendations.

NAD Recommends Clorox Packaging Change

The NAD has issued a recommendation that The Clorox Company modify its packaging and a package insert to ensure consumers understand that Clorox’s zinc pyrithione works to prevent odors on the drawstring of the company’s “Glad Tall Kitchen Drawstring Bags.”

The issue was not whether the product worked as described, but whether the branding and description led consumers to believe that the product protected against food-borne or disease-causing bacteria or germs.

NAD’s conclusion was that “the combined design elements, in the context in which they are found on the product packaging, reasonably conveyed a confusing, if not inaccurate, message as to the specific antimicrobial protection offered...[and] that consumers could reasonably understand ‘antimicrobial protection’ to mean protection from bacteria and germs rather than odor produced by bacteria and germs on the drawstring.”

This past week, the following regulatory and consumer actions made headlines:

Cheez-It Whole Grain Crackers ‘Not Ready,’ lawsuit claims

The Kellogg Company is being sued over its “whole grain” Cheez-It crackers. According to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the claim that these crackers are whole grain is “false and misleading, because the primary ingredient in Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers is enriched white flour.”

While the Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers do contain some whole wheat flour, plaintiffs argue it is almost negligible. A comparison of the Cheez-It Original crackers and the Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers shows identical nutritional values in every category, except fiber. The Original crackers contain “less than 1g,” while the Whole Grain crackers contain 1 gram.

Plaintiffs argue the Cheez-It claims are thus misleading, and have caused consumers to purchase or pay a premium for a product, that they otherwise would not have paid. The Kellogg Company has denied any misconduct, including any alleged impropriety in its labeling.

This week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Mortgage Scammer Under Water After FTC Settlement

On May 9, 2016, the FTC announced that it is returning $1.87 million to 1,630 consumers who lost money in the Expense Management America telemarketing scheme that never provided debt or mortgage relief services after absconding with homeowners’ up-front fees. The repayment to consumers is a capstone on a three and a half year joint effort with the DOJ, FBI and HUD to crack down on mortgage scammers taking advantage of distressed homeowners. Related efforts, underway since 2008, resulted in a new FTC rule providing increased protection to homeowners by prohibiting any collection of fees until the homeowner has an acceptable written offer from their lender. In prosecuting Expense Management America, the FTC worked closely with various enforcement agencies in Canada to track down and prosecute the scammers.

This week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Federal Trade Commission:

FTC Obtains Multimillion Dollar Judgment Against Repeat Offender

At the FTC’s request, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a $13.4 million judgment against BlueHippo’s CEO, Joseph Rensin, as well as finding Rensin, BlueHippo Funding LLC and BlueHippo Capital LLC, in contempt for violating a 2008 federal court order concerning BlueHippo’s operation of a deceptive computer financing scheme. The FTC charged BlueHippo with contempt in 2009, alleging that the company contracted with thousands of consumers to finance new computers, but failed to provide those computers, in addition to having a deceptive refund policy. In July 2010, the Court issued an order partially granting the FTC’s motion for contempt. The FTC appealed the compensatory sanctions portion of that order, and in August 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the damages portion of the order and remanded the case for a reconsideration of damages. The contempt judgment will go towards consumer redress.

This week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Self-Regulatory Decisions:

Steuart’s Pain Formula Referred to the FTC

The National Advertising Division (“NAD”) referred Steuart Laboratories, Inc., the producer of Steuart’s Pain Formula, to the FTC for the second time after it failed to provide the NAD with substantiation for challenged claims. Steuart was initially referred to the NAD by Steuart’s competitor, EuroPharma, Inc., who challenged several efficacy and testimonial claims.

Mars, Inc. and its M&M’s Minis candy are the latest targets in a wave of “slack-fill” litigation.

Slack-fill is empty space in product packaging – i.e., the difference between the maximum capacity of a product’s container and the actual volume of product inside. Slack-fill litigation has increased in recent years as class plaintiffs allege that companies are deliberately including empty space in their packaging to deceive consumers into paying higher prices for lower product quantities.

This past week, several consumer protection actions made headlines:

FTC to Let the Sun Shine on Consumer Protection Issues in Rooftop Solar Panel Businesses

The FTC announced that it will be holding a workshop focused on competition and consumer protection in the growing industry of consumer-oriented rooftop solar panels. The workshop, which will take place in Washington D.C. on June 21, 2016, is meant to expand the FTC’s understanding and approach to the growing consumer solar panel industry. Planned topics of discussion include: (1) how consumers can get needed information when deciding whether to install rooftop solar panels; (2) how utility regulators currently approach compensating consumers for power generated on their solar panels; and (3) competition in the solar power generation industry.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

FTC Reminds Consumers to Watch for Misleading Sales; Warns Retailers of the Same

In a recent consumer information piece, the FTC sought to warn consumers of misleading “sales.” Of concern to consumers and the FTC are advertisements or in-store tags that suggest a consumer will save on a product, when in reality the consumer will pay full price and the promised discount is applied on a future purchase.

The FTC also published a warning to retailers that offers must be sufficiently transparent for consumers to be able to determine the final price of a product or service.

We previously reported on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA’s”) request for public comment concerning the use of the term “natural” on food labels, and we noted that businesses should consider seeking a stay of any pending lawsuits challenging their use of the term “natural” on food labels under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The Ninth Circuit, home of the infamous “Food Court,” has now invoked that doctrine and has ordered the stay of a pending “natural” mislabeling class action in Kane v. Chobani, LLC, No. 14-15670.

This past week, the following regulatory and consumer actions made headlines:

FDA Scratches Out Shionogi’s Misleading Labeling on its Children’s Head Lice Lotion

On April 1, 2016, the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) hit Shionogi & Co. Ltd. with a warning letter stating that it had mislabeled its Ulesifa children’s head lice lotion because the labeling failed to inform patients that it should not be used on children under six months old and that it does not eliminate lice eggs. The labeling was in Shionogi & Co.’s recently issued customer co-pay assistance voucher that offered patients discounts to bring their co-pays down to $10. The FDA acknowledged that the voucher’s fine print stated it was only indicated for children over six months of age, but the FDA said that was not enough to avoid mislabeling violations. The agency requested that Shionogi & Co. cease the mislabeling immediately and submit a written response within two weeks.

This past week, the following regulatory and consumer actions made headlines:

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Procter & Gamble’s Challenge on “Snake Oil” Claim

Procter & Gamble’s (“P&G’s”) efforts to get the U.S. Supreme Court to review an Ohio federal judge’s class certification finding ended when the high court denied certiorari in The Procter & Gamble Co. v. Dino Rikos, thereby upholding the Sixth Circuit’s 2-1 decision.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Litigation Halted:

Jury finds Pom Wonderful Failed to Prove Coke Misled Customers

A California federal jury found that Pom Wonderful failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence its claims under the Lanham Act that Coca-Cola misled customers into thinking that Minute Maid’s “Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored 100% Juice Blend” contained more than 50 percent of pomegranate and blueberry juice combined. Pom Wonderful had sought $77.5 million from Coca-Cola, claiming that the company had stolen its business by tricking consumers into buying its juice.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

NAD Actions

Rust-Oleum to Appeal NAD Ruling on “2X” Product Names and Marketing

The National Advertising Division of the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council (“NAD”) has recommended that Rust-Oleum Corp. stop making claims that its “Painter’s Touch Ultra Cover 2X Spray Paint” has double the coverage capacity as competing spray paints. The NAD also has recommended that Rust-Oleum change the product name. Rust-Oleum plans to appeal NAD’s decision to the National Advertising Review Board. NAD also found Rust-Oleum’s in-house testing to be lacking and its marketing claims to be unsupported by testing.

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission laid down a clear marker for retailers in announcing a settlement with Lord & Taylor. This is the agency’s first native advertising case since issuing its Enforcement Policy Statement on Deceptively Formatted Advertising and its Native Advertising Business Guidance in December 2015.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Food Marketing: Consumers Respond to Motion to Dismiss their Claims Against Walmart’s Missing Pork

On March 9, 2016, plaintiffs in a suit against Walmart Stores, Inc. responded to the company’s  motion to dismiss, saying that their complaint sufficiently put the retailer on notice of allegations that Walmart’s Great Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce lacked an important ingredient: pork. The plaintiffs argue that the USDA requires pork and beans products to contain at least 12 percent pork in order to advertise pork on its labels, and that plaintiffs’ testing did not show any traces of pork in the product. Walmart contends in its motion to dismiss that its labels plainly state that the product contains less than 2 percent pork, and that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by food labeling laws.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Retail Pricing: Class Action Complaint Against Gap Dismissed

A putative class action, alleging that The Gap, Inc.’s deceptive advertising in stores confuses customers as to what products are actually discounted and tricks many into buying products at full price, was tentatively tossed by a California state judge last week. The Court granted Gap’s demurrer in part because the named plaintiff failed to identify particular advertisements relied upon in her purchases and, more importantly, could not allege that she was actually injured by Gap’s alleged practices. In fact, the Court stated that being “psychologically committed” to an item such that the named plaintiff did not return it was not enough to state a claim. The court gave the plaintiff one last chance to allege an injury.

For the past several years, the industry and the plaintiffs’ bar have been litigating over what is “natural” and what is not when it comes to food products. This issue hit home with retailers with news of multimillion dollar settlements resolving claims concerning use of the term “natural” on food product labels. The issue certainly became blurred when it came to modern processing methods and advances in biotechnology, particularly with respect to ingredients like high fructose corn syrup or genetically modified fruits and vegetables. Late last year, however, in response to four consumer petitions, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) requested public comments concerning the use of the term “natural” on food labels. Whether and how the FDA ultimately defines the term “natural” will surely impact cases in the long-run. But the FDA’s decision to request comment has more immediate effects. It arms defendants with potential means to bring pending litigation to an immediate halt.

As we previously reported in Looking Back: Retail Antitrust Enforcement in 2015, last year was a booming year for consumer products mergers (and the antitrust review of those mergers). With a robust market and incentives strongly in favor of further acquisitions, we expect the trend to continue in 2016.

Late last year, as the holidays approached, the Federal Trade Commission issued enforcement guidance on “native advertising” — ads that purposely are formatted to appear as noncommercial and are integrated into surrounding editorial content. The agency’s guidance took two parts: an Enforcement Policy Statement on deceptively formatted ads, and a Guide for Business on native advertising. These long-awaited guidance documents follow on the FTC’s December 2013 “Blurred Lines” workshop on native advertising. Importantly, the FTC notes that its policy statement does not apply just to advertisers but also to other parties that help create the content: ad agencies, ad networks and potentially, publishers.

The supply of a medicinal product without a marketing authorisation under national provisional permissions of use does not generally prevent an SPC.

The scope of protection of an SPC for a virus may be broader than the specific virus strain mentioned in the marketing authorization.

Today, the EFTA Court ruled on two important SPC issues that were raised in the Intervet case (E – 16/14). The case concerns, on the one hand, the supply of a veterinary vaccine without a marketing authorisation (‘MA’) under successive national provisional permissions of use in order to fight a ...