On April 11, 2019, the Texas Senate passed by a vote of 20-10 bipartisan Senate Bill 1189 regulating attorney advertising relating to prescription medication and medical device litigation.
The bill prohibits certain advertisements for legal services that use the phrases “medical alert,” “drug alert,” “public service announcement,” or other language to suggest that “the advertisement is offering professional, medical, or government agency advice about medications or medical devices rather than legal services.”
Counsel drafting an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) or an agreement under Rule 502(e) generally expect to supplant the uncertainty of the privilege waiver analysis under Rule 502(b) and assure near-absolute protection against inadvertent waiver. But two recent decisions frustrate such expectations and offer lessons on how to better assure strong anti-waiver protection. Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2017); irth Solutions, LLC v. Windstream Communications, LLC, 2018 WL 575911 (S.D. Ohio 2018) (appeal pending).
Two individual former corporate officers of Chinese appliance manufacturer Gree Electric Appliances have been criminally indicted in the first-ever criminal prosecution for failure to report under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).
The CPSA grants the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) the authority to pursue both civil and criminal penalties for violations of the statutes it enforces. As summarized in a Department of Justice press release, Section 15 of “[t]he Consumer Product Safety Act requires manufacturers, importers, and distributors of consumer products to report ‘immediately’ to the CPSC information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a product contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. This duty also applies to the individual directors, officers, and agents of those companies.”
A recent decision by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania serves as a reminder that attempts to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction via questionable joinder of parties is likely to fail in the Third Circuit.