This edition of Greenberg Traurig’s Consumer Compass highlights the pivotal shifts and emerging trends impacting the consumer products industry. Inside, we provide timely legal updates, strategic insights, and essential developments—curated to help empower business decisions and keep stakeholders informed in a rapidly changing market. Go North for regulatory updates; East for emerging risks; South for
On March 6, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jointly issued seven warning letters to companies making alleged unauthorized claims related to the prevention or treatment of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In addition to issuing the joint warning letters, the FDA issued a press release announcing the
In a recent decision by Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the Northern District of Illinois, the Court recognized an important distinction for Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) claims between a claim for “actual falsity” and one for “lack of substantiation.” Spector v. Mondelez Int’l, Inc., 15 C 4298, 2017 WL 4283711, at *10 (N.D.
On Saturday, March 7, 2015, at 10:30 a.m., a panel of Greenberg Traurig attorneys, moderated by Denver Shareholder Justin Prochnow, will present on the topic “Labeling Litigation: Strategies for Marketing Products While Avoiding the Courtroom,” at this widely attended conference. Natural Products Expo West continues to be the leading trade show in the natural,
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently finalized two rules requiring that calorie information be listed on menus and menu boards in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments, as well as on certain vending machines. In announcing the finalization of the two rules, FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. stated that “Americans eat
Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Irving Scher and Ed Chansky authored an GT Alert, “Price Advertising Claims Make a Comeback – As Class Actions”
The minimal regulatory enforcement in recent years may have led some retailers to let down their guard in complying with some of the more stringent state regulatory requirements dealing with price advertising.
Our Greenberg Traurig colleagues, Ed Chansky and Irving Scher, recently prepared a GT Client Advisory discussing the enforcement of inadequate negative option/automatic-renewal disclosures and the requirements for companies to be compliant with state and federal laws. Negative options, as defined by the FTC, are commercial transactions in which sellers interpret a customer’s failure to
a href=”https://www.gtlaw-consumerproductscounselor.com/files/2014/07/shutterstock_153943454.jpg”>
As the Supreme Court has tightened the requirements for certifying a damages class action, some in the plaintiff’s bar have responded by focusing on class actions seeking injunctive relief, particularly in cases against consumer products companies. To certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), a plaintiff does not have to demonstrate predominance or superiority, and thus an injunctive class should, at least in theory, be easier to certify. But a class action seeking injunctive relief has its own challenges, one of which is establishing that the named plaintiff has standing.
In the context of a consumer fraud class action, standing can be a particular challenge. A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief “must demonstrate that he has suffered or is threatened with a ‘concrete and particularized’ legal harm, coupled with ‘a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way.’” Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must “establish a ‘real and immediate threat of repeated injury’ ” that “must be likely to be redressed by the prospective injunctive relief.” Id. “Unless the named plaintiffs are themselves entitled to seek injunctive relief, they may not represent a class seeking that relief.” Hodgers–Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 1999). Thus, without a threat of future harm, injunctive relief is not available.
Continue Reading The Injunction Conundrum – When Can a Class Action Plaintiff Sue for Injunctive Relief?
In our February 12, 2014 post, entitled “Consumer Class Actions Trending From Attacking ‘All Natural’ to ‘Raw,’” we addressed whether claims challenging consumer product advertising as “all natural” were preempted in the absence of specific guidance from the FDA and the mixed results the argument has produced. In Ault v. J.M. Smucker Co. et al.
Our Greenberg Traurig colleagues, David G. Thomas, James P. Ponsetto and Michael E. Pastore prepared a GT Client Advisory discussing Massachusetts’ laws governing price comparison advertising, as set forth in 940 C.M.R. § 6.05. The authors explain price comparison advertising and other pricing practices that may be unfair or deceptive advertising.
To view the