Hunton Retail Law Resource

Earlier this month, proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) and Glass Lewis recommended that shareholders vote for retailer Chico’s FAS Inc.’s (“Chico’s”) board of director candidates, instead of the two candidates nominated by activist investor Barington Capital Group LP (“Barington”). This prompted Barington to abandon its proxy fight.

On July 19, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. H.D. Smith, LLC, No. 15-2825 that a general liability insurer’s duty to defend suits seeking damages “because of bodily injury” was triggered when the state of West Virginia sued a pharmaceutical distributor, alleging it had contributed to an epidemic of prescription drug abuse, causing the state to spend money to care for addicted citizens.

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

Class Plaintiffs Just Keep Swimming Against Safeway in Underfilled Tuna Case

On July 13, 2016, Safeway escaped negligent misrepresentation claims in a putative class action consumer suit alleging that Safeway violated federal guidelines when it chronically underfilled two of its private label canned tuna products. Safeway filed a limited motion to dismiss the class plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims. The court found that, though duplicative, unjust enrichment was properly plead, but the negligent misrepresentation claim failed because class plaintiffs could not show that they suffered any loss other than an economic loss. Unfortunately for the grocer, eight other claims in the suit survived, including various breaches of warranty, unjust enrichment and California unfair competition counts. 

In December 2014, the New York Attorney General’s Office initiated an investigation into Jimmy John’s corporate office and its New York franchises. Jimmy John’s is a sandwich shop with franchises throughout New York and the United States. The investigation in New York concerned whether the use of a non-compete clause that barred departing employees from taking a job with any employer within two miles of a Jimmy John’s store that made more than 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches was legal.

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

Federal Trade Commission

FTC Settlement Casts Shadow Over Online Video Game Reviews

This past week, the FTC settled with Warner Bros. Home Entertainment over online influencer charges. The FTC alleged that Warner Bros. deceived consumers while marketing its video game, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. Warner Bros. paid online “influencers,” like the popular gamer “PewDiePie,” to post positive reviews of the game online through YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other social media. While Warner Bros. instructed these influencers to disclose the connection, they told them to do so in a description box below the video, not in the video itself, so that the monetary connection was not immediately apparent. The FTC has been particularly focused on cracking down on misleading online reviews in the past few years.

Consumer class actions are on the minds of virtually all consumer product manufacturers and service providers. Class actions based on privacy and consumer protection statutes are increasing at a remarkable rate, and can be a challenge to predict, budget and defend, given the difficulty in valuing consumer privacy rights. In an article, “Second Circuit Reminds Consumer Product Companies That Insurance Options Exist for Big Data Blunders and Privacy Faux Pas,” published in FC&S Legal’s Eye on the Experts column, Hunton lawyers Syed S. Ahmad, Neil K. Gilman and Paul T. Moura ...

The tidal wave of New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) claims just swept up a novel argument: a class complaint against Facebook, Inc. argues that the popular social media site’s terms of use is subject to TCCWNA because Facebook profits from users’ personal information and intellectual property.

President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (“Lautenberg Act”) into law in June 2016, amending the core provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) for the first time in nearly 40 years. Last month, Hunton & Williams detailed how the Lautenberg Act considerably broadens the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s”) authority to evaluate chemical safety and regulate use of chemicals in all stages of the supply chain, including manufacturing, distribution and retail sale. Within six months, EPA must select at least 10 chemical substances and begin risk evaluations on them. EPA must also classify chemicals – including those currently in the retail supply chain – as “high priority” or “low priority” for review, and begin risk evaluations on 20 high priority chemicals within the next three and a half years.

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

Technology

Volkswagen to Pay an Additional $86 Million to California

On July 6, California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced that Volkswagen (“VW”) will pay the state an additional $86 million in a second partial settlement over VW’s emissions “defeat devices.” This civil penalty sum is the largest amount ever recovered by California from an automaker, and comes on the heels of the recently announced $14.7 billion settlement negotiated by the EPA and the FTC over the German automaker’s emissions-cheating scandal. The $86 million is part of a total $603 million VW has agreed to pay to resolve consumer-protection claims with 46 jurisdictions. As part of the settlement, VW agreed to strict injunctive terms, including prohibitions on false advertising and affirmative disclosure of defeat devices.

If you live in an urban environment, you have likely seen food trucks on city streets, in parking lots or at any number of local events. The mobile food industry has grown significantly over the last few years and, with that growth, vendors and their brick-and-mortar competition have been faced with a changing regulatory landscape. 

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

FTC Announces Substantial Maximum Civil Penalties Increases Due to “Catch-Up” Cost-of-Living Adjustment

Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 2015, the FTC has approved new maximum civil penalties for 16 law provisions governed by the Agency. Many of the maximum penalties had not been adjusted in decades and are increasing substantially under the statutorily mandated “catch up” cost-of-living adjustment.

For many consumers, online reviews play a role in the decision to make any purchase. Before making dinner reservations, choosing a hotel, hiring a service provider or even buying a toaster, consumers often look to online reviews as an assessment of the product, service or experience they want to buy. In a market where a negative online review or rating from a dissatisfied customer can influence countless other potential buyers — not just people the dissatisfied customer knows in real life — companies have a strong incentive to maintain a positive reputation online. However, in a desire to separate themselves from the competition with strong reviews, some companies have taken the race for positive online reviews too far, and the Federal Trade Commission is watching.