Hunton Retail Law Resource

On October 1, 2020, New York state implemented a ban on businesses charging a “pink tax” for their products or services. The new law prohibits any individual or entity, including retailers, suppliers, manufacturers or distributors, from charging a different price for two “substantially similar” goods or services based on the gender for whom the goods or services are marketed.

On March 6, 2020, the FTC announced a settlement with Teami, LLC and its owners over allegations that the company falsely promoted its Teami brand tea products as capable of curing serious health conditions and causing significant weight loss, supported by endorsements by well-known social media influencers who did not adequately disclose that they were being paid to promote their products. According to the FTC, after receiving a warning letter from the FTC in 2018, Teami implemented a social media policy requiring informative hashtags, but failed to enforce it, resulting in ...

In a challenge brought by Aquasana, Inc., the NAD determined that Advanced Purification Engineering Corp. (APEC), a manufacturer of water filtration systems, was not responsible for substantiating or correcting “Made in USA” claims made in customer reviews posted on third-party sites.

On January 30, 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous 11-judge opinion striking down San Francisco’s ordinance mandating health warnings on ads for sugary drinks. The judicial panel found that San Francisco’s proposed law violated beverage companies’ First Amendment rights to free speech.

This past week, several consumer actions made headlines that affect the retail industry.

“Black Truffle Flavored Extra Virgin Olive Oil” Case Dismissed Against Trader Joe’s

On August 30, 2018, the Southern District of New York dismissed class action claims for consumers who purchased Trader Joe’s “Black Truffle Flavored Extra Virgin Olive Oil.” The complaint alleged that the product label contained the words “black truffle” in large black letters, with the words “flavored” and “extra virgin olive oil” in smaller cursive letters underneath. However, DNA testing revealed that the oil did not contain actual truffle, but rather 2,4-dithiapentane, a petroleum-based synthetic injection that imitates the taste and smell of truffles.

On June 11, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled that American Pipe tolling does not extend to follow-on class actions brought after the statute of limitations period has run. This decision resolves a split between circuit courts over the question of whether a putative class member can rely on American Pipe to toll applicable statute of limitations to file a new class action in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or filing an individual action. The Court held that “American Pipe tolls the statutes of limitations during the pendency of a putative class action, allowing unnamed class members to join the action individually or file individual claims. But American Pipe does not permit the maintenance of a follow-on class action past expiration of the statute of limitations.” China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, --- S. Ct. ---, 2018 WL 2767565, at *3 (2018). 

This past week, several consumer actions made headlines that affect the retail industry.

FTC Expands Agency’s Leadership Team with New Consumer Protection Director

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joseph Simons announced the appointment of Andrew Smith as Director of the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, beginning next week. Smith is Chair of the American Bar Association’s Consumer Financial Services Committee and a Fellow of the American College of Consumer Financial Services Lawyers. From 2001-2004, he served as Assistant to the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection and FACT Act Program Manager, leading implementation of the FACT Act rulemaking, proceedings and studies. The vote to install Smith was 3-2, with the FTC’s two democratic commissioners filing statements in opposition.

On August 7, 2017, the FTC announced that it obtained a court order temporarily halting an online marketing scheme that deceptively lured shoppers into expensive negative option plans. The FTC alleged in its complaint that defendants used initial low-cost “trial” offers to hook consumers into expensive monthly shipments for tooth-whitening products without properly disclosing the terms and conditions of the deal or properly obtaining their consent.