Hunton Retail Law Resource

This past week, several consumer protection actions made headlines:

FTC to Let the Sun Shine on Consumer Protection Issues in Rooftop Solar Panel Businesses

The FTC announced that it will be holding a workshop focused on competition and consumer protection in the growing industry of consumer-oriented rooftop solar panels. The workshop, which will take place in Washington D.C. on June 21, 2016, is meant to expand the FTC’s understanding and approach to the growing consumer solar panel industry. Planned topics of discussion include: (1) how consumers can get needed information when deciding whether to install rooftop solar panels; (2) how utility regulators currently approach compensating consumers for power generated on their solar panels; and (3) competition in the solar power generation industry.

As reported on the Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog, data breach claims involving customer data can present an ever-increasing risk for many retailers and other companies. A recent case further supports efforts to recover the costs associated with such claims. Specifically, a panel of the Fourth Circuit confirmed that general liability policies can afford coverage for cyber-related liabilities, and ruled that an insurer had to pay attorneys’ fees to defend the policyholder in class action litigation in Travelers Indemnity Company v. Portal Healthcare Solutions, No. 14-1944. Syed Ahmad, a partner in the Hunton & Williams LLP insurance practice, was quoted in a Law360 article concerning the importance of this decision.

We previously reported on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), wherein a 6-3 majority held that “an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case.” As part of its decision, however, the Supreme Court expressly left open one critical question: whether a defendant can moot a case by tendering—as opposed to simply offering—complete relief to the plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit has now weighed in on that issue and has answered that question in the negative.

We previously reported on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA’s”) request for public comment concerning the use of the term “natural” on food labels, and we noted that businesses should consider seeking a stay of any pending lawsuits challenging their use of the term “natural” on food labels under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The Ninth Circuit, home of the infamous “Food Court,” has now invoked that doctrine and has ordered the stay of a pending “natural” mislabeling class action in Kane v. Chobani, LLC, No. 14-15670.

This past week, the following regulatory and consumer actions made headlines:

FDA Scratches Out Shionogi’s Misleading Labeling on its Children’s Head Lice Lotion

On April 1, 2016, the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) hit Shionogi & Co. Ltd. with a warning letter stating that it had mislabeled its Ulesifa children’s head lice lotion because the labeling failed to inform patients that it should not be used on children under six months old and that it does not eliminate lice eggs. The labeling was in Shionogi & Co.’s recently issued customer co-pay assistance voucher that offered patients discounts to bring their co-pays down to $10. The FDA acknowledged that the voucher’s fine print stated it was only indicated for children over six months of age, but the FDA said that was not enough to avoid mislabeling violations. The agency requested that Shionogi & Co. cease the mislabeling immediately and submit a written response within two weeks.

This past week, the following regulatory and consumer actions made headlines:

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Procter & Gamble’s Challenge on “Snake Oil” Claim

Procter & Gamble’s (“P&G’s”) efforts to get the U.S. Supreme Court to review an Ohio federal judge’s class certification finding ended when the high court denied certiorari in The Procter & Gamble Co. v. Dino Rikos, thereby upholding the Sixth Circuit’s 2-1 decision.

For retailers operating in California, the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (“Prop 65”) is a constant and often costly headache. Among other requirements, Prop 65 prohibits businesses with ten or more employees, including those that ship products into California, from exposing people in California to any of the over 800 listed chemicals without first providing a “clear and reasonable” warning. The statute also contains a prohibition against discharging or releasing listed chemicals to “sources of drinking water” in the state, but those provisions are not discussed here. The list of over 800 chemicals is revised and updated annually.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Litigation Halted:

Jury finds Pom Wonderful Failed to Prove Coke Misled Customers

A California federal jury found that Pom Wonderful failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence its claims under the Lanham Act that Coca-Cola misled customers into thinking that Minute Maid’s “Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored 100% Juice Blend” contained more than 50 percent of pomegranate and blueberry juice combined. Pom Wonderful had sought $77.5 million from Coca-Cola, claiming that the company had stolen its business by tricking consumers into buying its juice.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

NAD Actions

Rust-Oleum to Appeal NAD Ruling on “2X” Product Names and Marketing

The National Advertising Division of the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council (“NAD”) has recommended that Rust-Oleum Corp. stop making claims that its “Painter’s Touch Ultra Cover 2X Spray Paint” has double the coverage capacity as competing spray paints. The NAD also has recommended that Rust-Oleum change the product name. Rust-Oleum plans to appeal NAD’s decision to the National Advertising Review Board. NAD also found Rust-Oleum’s in-house testing to be lacking and its marketing claims to be unsupported by testing.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Food Marketing: Consumers Respond to Motion to Dismiss their Claims Against Walmart’s Missing Pork

On March 9, 2016, plaintiffs in a suit against Walmart Stores, Inc. responded to the company’s  motion to dismiss, saying that their complaint sufficiently put the retailer on notice of allegations that Walmart’s Great Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce lacked an important ingredient: pork. The plaintiffs argue that the USDA requires pork and beans products to contain at least 12 percent pork in order to advertise pork on its labels, and that plaintiffs’ testing did not show any traces of pork in the product. Walmart contends in its motion to dismiss that its labels plainly state that the product contains less than 2 percent pork, and that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by food labeling laws.

On February 29, 2016, News Corporation reached a $244 million settlement with a consumer product manufacturer class to end claims that it monopolized the market for third-party, in-store promotions by entering into long-term, exclusive contracts, and that it overcharged its advertisers by over $674 million in the last seven years. News Corp. acts as an intermediary between retailers and consumer product manufacturers by buying up advertising space on shelves and store floors and then reselling that space to consumer product manufacturers. Plaintiffs alleged that News Corp. used exclusive contracts to tie up nearly 90 percent of the in-store promotions market, and manufacturers, including Dial and Heinz, claimed News Corp. used that monopoly power to extract unfairly high prices.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Retail Pricing: Class Action Complaint Against Gap Dismissed

A putative class action, alleging that The Gap, Inc.’s deceptive advertising in stores confuses customers as to what products are actually discounted and tricks many into buying products at full price, was tentatively tossed by a California state judge last week. The Court granted Gap’s demurrer in part because the named plaintiff failed to identify particular advertisements relied upon in her purchases and, more importantly, could not allege that she was actually injured by Gap’s alleged practices. In fact, the Court stated that being “psychologically committed” to an item such that the named plaintiff did not return it was not enough to state a claim. The court gave the plaintiff one last chance to allege an injury.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions in federal courts and agencies made headlines:

The Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit was busy addressing consumer protection issues this week. Two proposed class actions brought against Apple, Inc. were decided in favor of the company. In the first action, Hodges v. Apple, Inc., a three-judge panel affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a putative class action alleging deceptive practices in the advertising and sale of Apple’s MacBook Pro with retina display computers. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the quality of his retina display screen, but the Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court that Apple had not misled consumers about the retina displays in its advertising. In the second case, a three-judge panel again upheld a dismissal of a proposed class action against Apple that accused the company of misrepresenting the speech capabilities of its iPhone 4S product. The majority of the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s assessment that the allegations about the capabilities of the Siri speech recognition software were too broad, and did not meet the pleading requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finally, a three-judge panel revived a class action that had previously been dismissed by a district judge against Hain Celestial’s Alba Botanica skincare line. Plaintiffs claimed that marketing the products as “natural” misled consumers into buying products that contained synthetic substances at a higher cost.

The National Advertising Division (“NAD”) was busy this past week. The organization recommended that several companies modify or discontinue claims made for the following consumer products:

Disinfecting Wipes

After a challenge by The Clorox Company, NAD recommended that Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., discontinue certain claims made in both print and television ads for Lysol Disinfecting Wipes and Spray products. The claims included statements declaring that Lysol “helps fight the flu before it starts” and kills “45% more types of germs” as compared to other wipes. NAD concluded that these claims were not supported by evidence in the record, and Reckitt Benckiser announced that it plans to appeal NAD’s findings to the National Advertising Review Board. Clorox has been active recently in challenging competitors’ claims–just a few weeks ago, in a challenge brought by Clorox, the NAD recommended that the maker of OxiClean White Revive non-chlorine bleach modify its television ad campaigns.

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

Outlet Retailers Sued over Allegedly Deceptive Pricing Practices

Class action lawsuits against several retailers, including Burberry and Dooney & Bourke, allege that outlet discount prices tags that compare the outlet price with purported retail prices deceive consumers into believing they are getting a bargain when, in fact, they are not. Reference pricing rules (e.g., the FTC’s Guides on Deceptive Pricing) prohibit sellers from offering fictitious bargains. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege that the retailers’ practice of offering for sale made-for-outlet goods that never were sold at the referenced price is deceptive.

This past week, the following regulatory and consumer actions made headlines:

National Advertising Division Weighs in on “Scary Bleach” Claims

After a challenge by The Clorox Company, the National Advertising Division (“NAD”) recommended that Church & Dwight, the maker of OxiClean White Revive non-chlorine bleach, modify its television ad campaign suggesting that chlorine bleach could be “scary.” The commercials in question highlighted garment care labels directing consumers to “use only non-chlorine bleach, when needed,” thus implying that Chlorox’s product was damaging to the kinds of white garments depicted in the ads. The NAD found that Church & Dwight was required to provide a reasonable basis for its use of care labels in its ads, particularly advertising claims that denigrated Chlorox’s product. This decision followed on a 2014 NAD recommendation that Church & Dwight avoid conveying the unsupported message that chlorine bleach is damaging to white garments.

Each week, we will present a summary of key consumer protection developments affecting the retail industry. This past week, the following regulatory and consumer actions made headlines:

FTC Continues Focus on False Weight Loss Claims, Settles with Sale Slash for $43 million

After a nearly year-long litigation, California company Sale Slash LLC has agreed to pay $43 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company deceptively sold “bogus” weight loss pills, including through unauthorized celebrity endorsements. As part of the settlement, Sale Slash may not represent that its products are endorsed by any specific individual, or claim that its products aid in weight loss or are safe for consumers unless the claims are supported by “competent and reliable scientific evidence.”

Large-scale food safety issues have been hard to miss in the news lately. Chipotle’s multi-state E. Coli outbreak and listeria monocytogenes found in samples of Blue Bell Creamery ice cream products are some of the recent examples. After a product recall, retailers and other companies involved must focus resources on finding out what went wrong, remedying the problem and rectifying the company image. Hunton & Williams Insurance Coverage Counseling and Litigation attorneys recently authored an article, Insureds Find Place to Roost in Foster Poultry Contamination Case

Earlier this month, a group of former delivery drivers filed a putative collective action lawsuit against an online retailer and Courier Logistics Services, LLC (“CLS”). The case is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs allege that the two companies willfully misclassified them as independent contractors and denied overtime pay properly due under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

As reported on the Hunton Employment Labor and Law Blog, on January 20, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, No. 14-857 (U.S.), in which a 6-3 majority held that “an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case,” thus resolving an ongoing split among the Circuits on this issue. While this is seemingly a positive development for the plaintiffs’ bar, the Court expressly left open one critical question that is almost sure to be revisited: whether a defendant can moot a case by tendering—as opposed to simply offering—complete relief to the plaintiff.

Last month, the American Tort Reform Foundation (“ATRF”) released the 2015-2016 edition of its annual “Judicial Hellholes” report. Each year, the report identifies the venues it deems the least favorable for defendants and highlights notable pro-plaintiff rulings and practices in each jurisdiction.

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a much-anticipated opinion regarding the constitutionality of the prohibition against “disparaging” trademarks. In an 9-3 en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit held that the exclusion of disparaging trademarks under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment.

Many of the marks rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of stigmatized communities. But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech …. The  government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive  messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, Retailer Big Lots Stores, Inc. is facing a putative class action in Philadelphia, wherein the plaintiff alleges that the company “systematically” violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (“FCRA”) “standalone disclosure requirement” by making prospective employees sign a document used as a background check consent form that contained extraneous information. Among other things, the plaintiff alleges that Big Lots’ form violates the FCRA because it includes the following three categories of ...

Over the last 18 months, patrons of the nation’s most popular outlet stores have hit well-known retailers, including Gap Outlet, Banana Republic Factory Store and Saks Off 5th, with a flood of class action lawsuits for false and misleading advertising. In early 2014, four members of Congress wrote to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) asking the agency to begin an investigation into the sales practices at outlet stores.

As reported in the Privacy & Information Security Law blog, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in large part, upheld Target’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and work-product protections for information associated with a privileged, internal investigation of Target’s 2013 data breach.

On October 22, 2015, staff in the Division of Corporation Finance (the “Division”) at the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) issued Staff Legal Bulletin 14H (the “Bulletin”). The Bulletin is the latest in a series of Division interpretations under Rule 14a-8 governing shareholder proposals. The Bulletin focuses specifically on circumstances in which the Division will grant no-action relief to exclude a shareholder proposal under two hot-button issues from last year’s proxy season: (1) Rule 14a-8(i)(7), for proposals dealing with a company’s ordinary business operations, and (2) Rule 14a-8(i)(9), for a proposal that directly conflicts with one of the company’s own proposals to be submitted to shareholders at the same meeting. We discuss the Bulletin below.

As reported in the Privacy & Information Security Law blog, the Seventh Circuit rejected Neiman Marcus’ petition for a rehearing en banc of Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, No. 14-3122. In Remijas, a Seventh Circuit panel found that members of a putative class alleged sufficient facts to establish standing to sue Neiman Marcus following a 2013 data breach that resulted in hackers gaining access to customers’ credit and debit card information. No judge in regular active service requested a vote on the rehearing petition. Additionally, all members of the original panel voted ...

As reported in the Privacy & Information Security Law blog, Judge Magnuson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class of financial services institutions claiming damages from Target Corporation’s 2013 data breach. The class consists of “all entities in the United States and its Territories that issued payment cards compromised in the payment card data breach that was publicly disclosed by Target on December 19, 2013.”

The en banc US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion today in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag, et al. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al., Case No. 2013-1564. In a 6-5 decision, the court reaffirmed that laches is a defense to a suit for damages for patent infringement. In reaching this decision, the Federal Circuit distinguished Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), in which the US Supreme Court held that laches is not a defense to a suit for damages under the Copyright Act.

A federal court in New York recently found that litigation concerning damages related to a third party’s product recall required a defense under a commercial general liability policy. Thruway Produce, Inc. v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94846 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2015). Thruway Produce sold apples to Milnot Holding Company for use in baby food. The parties’ contract required the apples to be free of certain rodenticides (used to kill rats and mice). After discovering that certain apples were contaminated with rodenticide, Milnot was forced to recall its baby food ...

As reported in the Privacy & Information Security blog, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently granted, only in part, a motion to dismiss a data breach class action against Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (“Sony”) in Corona v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. The case therefore will proceed with some of the claims intact.

Read the full post.

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, No. 13-720 (June 22, 2015), upheld the longstanding precedent provided by Brulotte v. Thys Co, 379 U.S. 29 (1964), which stated that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” Id. at 32. Justice Kagan, writing the opinion of the Court, stated that stare decisis requires the Court to adhere to the decision in Brulotte.

Read the full client alert.

On Friday, January 30, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in POM Wonderful, LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, affirming the Federal Trade Commission's ruling in 2013 that a series of advertisements for POM’s pomegranate juice and supplements were deceptive and thus violated the FTC Act. However, the court provided some limited, yet important, relief to POM Wonderful and the other petitioners. The D.C. Circuit’s decision provides important guidance to companies advertising consumer products.

Read the full client alert.

As reported in the Privacy & Information Security Law blog, a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinforces the importance of obtaining affirmative user consent to website Terms of Use for website owners seeking to enforce those terms against consumers. In Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that Barnes & Noble’s website Terms of Use (“Terms”) were not enforceable against a consumer because the website failed to provide sufficient notice of the Terms, despite having placed conspicuous hyperlinks to the Terms ...

This week, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision addressing two important patent damages issues: the entire market value rule and the proper application of the Nash Bargaining Solution in VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-1489 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2014). In vacating a $386 million damages award against defendant Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit first resolved conflicting treatment of the application of the entire market value rule (EMV) by the district courts in cases where the smallest saleable unit is the entire accused device ...

The Supreme Court during its 2013–14 term decided on six patent cases, the last on June 19, 2014. These cases will have significant consequences for companies as they work to advance their strategy for protecting their intellectual property. The attached client alert provides highlights of each case.

On May 13, 2014, in Millennium Laboratories, Inc. v. Darwin Select Insurance Company, Case No. 12-CV-2742 H (KSC), a California federal district court ruled that Darwin Select Insurance Company breached its duty to defend Millennium in a pair of lawsuits in which two business rivals accused Millennium of false advertising, finding that the underlying lawsuits sufficiently alleged covered disparagement claims. In so doing, the court reaffirmed the longstanding rule in California that a carrier’s duty to defend is broad and requires the carrier to defend where there exists a ...