Alternatives to traditional food products have increased in availability, number, variety and popularity over the last decade. So where does this leave consumers and the regulators who are tasked with ensuring food safety? The Ninth Circuit has held that the reasonable consumer can digest the differences between almonds and cows.
In a world where consumers are more health-conscious and eco-friendly than ever, products containing artificial ingredients have become less attractive. Consumers are looking for natural alternatives, and the cosmetics industry is no exception. The recent boom of all-natural products has coincided with a rise in litigation. Like the food industry, cosmetic companies are learning that marketing products as “natural” comes with a price.
Government and regulatory agencies have recently provided guidelines regarding the importance of transparency in Direct-to–Consumer (DTC) advertising through proposed regulation and guidance documents.
Defendants faced with putative wide-reaching class action litigation are equipped with a variety of strategies for defeating class certification. One potential silver bullet, however, expires early, and defendants must deploy it even before a class certification motion is filed in order to wield it effectively. The United States District Court for the Central District of California’s recent decision granting summary judgment to Unilever United States, Inc. in a would-be class action concerning its St. Ives Apricot facial scrub underscores this strategy for (successfully) defeating class certification: Win the case on summary judgment first.
Those familiar with his legend know that Hall of famer Casey Stengel managed the New York Yankees in their mid-century heyday and, for a short time at their inception, the New York Mets. But he also is remembered as one of baseball’s great characters.
One story about Stengel was told by the great broadcaster Curt Gowdy. He was having a beer with Stengel at a bar in Cleveland. Stengel received his beer and quickly downed it in one long gulp, leading Gowdy to ask why he drank it so fast. Stengel said he drank beer that way ever since “the accident.”
Much has been said about the eye-popping verdict and the post-trial rulings in the Roundup case tried in San Francisco earlier this year. Johnson v. Monsanto Co., 2018 WL 5246323 (S.F. Super. Ct. Oct. 22, 2018). The court sustained the jury’s award of ~$39 million in compensatory damages, including $37 million in non-economic damages, and its finding that Monsanto was liable for punitive damages. The court reduced the punitive award on due process grounds to a one-to-one ratio, slashing it from $250 million to approximately $39 million. Monsanto recently filed its notice of appeal, and as we await the briefing and argument, a few issues and takeaways merit further discussion, particularly several disturbing issues surrounding the award of punitive damages. We will save for another day (or post) other significant liability and damages issues.
It is well-established that lawyers seeking to withdraw from representation on the eve of trial face an uphill battle, if not guaranteed defeat. This was recently reaffirmed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in HM Compounding Services, LLC, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to withdraw citing “irreconcilable differences” two weeks before the breach of contract matter was set for trial, and not surprisingly, the court required counsel to proceed with the representation.
President Trump recently signed the SUPPORT, or Substance-Use Disorder Prevention That Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment, for Patients and Communities Act (the “Act”), aimed at curbing the overuse of opioids in the United States. The Act is far-reaching, and it includes changes to Medicare, Medicaid and other public health efforts. Certain sections, especially those in Title III, “FDA and Controlled Substance Provisions,” will have a direct impact on manufacturers of certain products used to treat chronic pain.
Parties involved in coordinated proceedings featuring thousands of plaintiffs and a tight discovery schedule are expected to negotiate an efficient process for production of baseline data. The Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS)/Defendant Fact Sheet (DFS) process provides an orderly procedure for discovery specific to plaintiffs and their prescribing/treating physicians.
On October 10th, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al. v. Devries, et al., No. 17-1104, over whether the manufacturer of a bare metal product, in this case engines on a Navy ship, may be held liable for injuries suffered from later-added asbestos-containing materials. Under maritime law, the Third Circuit said yes, if the facts show the manufacturer reasonably could have known that asbestos is hazardous and its product will be used with an asbestos-containing part, because (a) the product was originally equipped with the asbestos part, which needs to be replaced, (b) the manufacturer specifically directed that the product be used with the asbestos-containing part, or (c) the product required the asbestos-containing part to properly function.