Since 2019, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have warned companies that make or sell cannabidiol (CBD) products that it is illegal to label and advertise that their products prevent, treat, or cure human disease without FDA approval or competent and reliable scientific evidence to support their claims. Both agencies have issued warning letters to makers and sellers of CBD products.

Our Cannabis Industry Team, which has been following key legislative and regulatory developments impacting industry retailers, takes a close look at who does what. The FTC’s and the FDA’s authority to regulate CBD products overlaps, but there are differences in the agencies’ enforcement powers and how they are using them.
Continue Reading The FTC’s Operation CBDeceit, A Piece of the CBD Regulatory Pie

We are delighted to share that this blog has received a 2020 “Go-To Thought Leadership Award” by the National Law Review for providing relevant analysis, knowledge, and thorough coverage of product liability and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) enforcement issues.

Continue Reading Schiff Recognized as “Go-To Thought Leader” on Product Liability Issues

From apparel companies that have shifted from making clothing to making face masks, to distilleries and breweries that are now producing hand sanitizer, to consumer goods and auto makers manufacturing ventilators and respirators, manufacturers nationwide have shifted their production lines to meet what consumers need during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Continue Reading Retooling in the Midst of COVID-19: Statutory Protections for Manufacturers

Have you eaten “America’s Favorite Pasta”[1] or received a “record-breaking” [2] footbag with your fast-food meal? While these products may seem to have little in common, they have a shared experience – each was the target of a false advertising claim. The statements raise the always-burning question for manufacturers: what is mere puffery and what constitutes false advertising?
Continue Reading Not Another Puff Piece: The Difference Between Puffery and False Advertising

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al. v. Devries, 139 S. Ct. 986 (2019), a maritime tort law case in which plaintiffs alleged that asbestos exposure during their Navy service caused them to develop cancer. The Supreme Court held that, in the maritime context, a manufacturer has a duty to warn not only of the manufacturer’s own products, but also of third-party products that are later added to the manufacturer’s product.
Continue Reading The Rule of Requirement: Supreme Court Adopts New Standard for Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn in Maritime Law

Long-anticipated changes to California’s Proposition 65 warning requirements took effect on August 30, 2018, through amendments and new rules issued by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Among other changes, the new rules now (1) require businesses to provide California consumers with product warnings at the time of purchase, including at the time of online purchases; and (2) change the text of the warnings that businesses may use to qualify for “safe harbor” protections. The new warning requirements apply only to products manufactured after August 30, 2018.
Continue Reading New California Prop 65 Warning Requirements: What Businesses Should Consider Now

We’ve been following a series of cases filed against Johnson & Johnson by plaintiffs alleging that using talc caused ovarian cancer.

Since 2009, over 2000 cases have been filed, mostly in Missouri, New Jersey, and California. Missouri has seen four trials: the first three resulted in plaintiffs’ verdicts, but the fourth and most recent resulted in a verdict for J&J.

Often in mass tort litigation, courts allow the parties to have a series of “bellwether trials” to show what is likely to happen in future trials. Rather than preparing to try all cases in a mass tort litigation, the parties can try fewer cases that involve the most contested issues. In Missouri, the bellwether trial plaintiffs are chosen by counsel, with each side taking a turn to select the next plaintiff.
Continue Reading Talc Talk – One of These Things (Verdicts) Is Not Like the Others

Food labeling litigation increased significantly last year, with many consumer groups alleging that products were misleadingly labeled and violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling requirements. Consumers targeted phrases like “all natural,” “preservative-free,” or having “no preservatives.”

But FDA rules are unclear as to what these terms mean, which will likely spur more labeling litigation in 2017. Here we look at three main reasons for the anticipated increase in litigation.
Continue Reading Food Fight: More Labeling Litigation in 2017

Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned 19 chemicals found in antibacterial hand and body washes. Included in this list is triclosan, a widely used ingredient in antibacterial soap.

The FDA’s new rule has been in the works for nearly four decades. The FDA proposed its first triclosan regulation in 1978 but never moved forward. Then, in 2013, the FDA called for a re-evaluation of over-the-counter antibacterial products. It asked companies to conduct additional studies and provide information on the safety and effectiveness of their antibacterial products containing any of one of 22 different ingredients.
Continue Reading Anti-Anti-Bacterials?