Hunton Retail Law Resource

Williams-Sonoma, Inc., has agreed to pay $1 million to the FTC in settlement of claims that the home furnishing company made false and unsubstantiated representations that certain products were made in the United States. In its complaint, the FTC alleged that Williams-Sonoma—also doing business as Pottery Barn, West Elm, Rejuvenation, Outward, Mark & Graham and other brands—deceptively claimed that the company’s Goldtouch Bakeware products, Rejuvenation-branded products and Pottery Barn Teen- and Pottery Barn Kids-branded upholstered furniture were made in the USA. In reality, many of these products were wholly imported or contained significant imported materials.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it will provide retail companies with significant relief from its Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Fees Rule. In a formal “No Action Assurance” (NAA) letter released to the public on March 25, 2020, EPA confirmed that companies importing products containing any amount of certain common “high-priority” chemicals will not be required to share in the fees for EPA’s upcoming risk evaluations for those chemicals. EPA also announced that it will provide exemptions for companies that manufacture a high-priority chemical only as a byproduct or impurity.

In a favorable decision for retailers, a California federal court judge scaled back a proposed class action seeking to bring nationwide class claims. Plaintiff Todd Carpenter alleged that he bought a rodent habitat at a California PetSmart and that the habitat was defective in such a way that his rodents were able to chew through and escape. He filed a class action in the US District Court for the Southern District of California for violations of California consumer protection laws, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and common law fraud. The plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class consisting of all purchasers of the rodent habitat along with a California subclass. PetSmart moved to strike the nationwide class on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over PetSmart with respect to the nationwide class.

In light of the various restrictions on retail businesses being issued nationwide in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19—such as the “safer at home” orders issued in Los Angeles County and throughout California last week—one Southern California city is taking action to support local businesses, while continuing to push compliance with the new legal restrictions.

This month’s Recall Roundup starts with the wish that the coronavirus could be recalled. Perhaps the would-be CPSC commissioner who could deliver that recall would be unanimously approved.

On the topic of would-be commissioners, President Trump recently announced his intent to nominate Dr. Nancy Beck to be Chairman and Commissioner of the agency. Beck currently serves as the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. She previously worked in various capacities at the EPA and Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Beck also worked as the Senior Director for Science Regulatory Policy at the American Chemistry Council, which is a chemical industry lobbyist group.

As coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to spread globally, precautions such as event postponement, travel cancellations and avoidance of crowds are having a significant economic impact, with many retailers being hit especially hard. After several years of solid market performance and economic growth, panic surrounding COVID-19 has resulted in volatility and significant drops in the stock market, creating less favorable economic conditions for M&A activity.

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 ...

Trademarks allow businesses to protect brand names and logos used on their goods and/or services. Unlike other IP, rights in a registered trademark can last indefinitely as long as the mark is in continuous use and all the required maintenance documents are filed. Failure to file such documents results in the cancellation of the trademark registration. Once canceled, the mark can still be re-applied for by the original owner and, in certain instances, another enterprising business. Specifically, assuming the mark has been legally abandoned, the other enterprising business can file its own trademark registration application for the mark.

On February 19, 2020, the Seventh Circuit, aligning with previous decisions of the Eleventh and Third Circuits, held in Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, Inc. that a defendant’s dialing system did not constitute an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) under the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act where it was not capable of generating random and sequential numbers. The court analyzed the language of the TCPA and determined that, as written, there were four potential ways to interpret the statutory language. However, based on both basic rules of grammar and punctuation, as well as the technology that was available at the time the TCPA was enacted into law in 1991, the Seventh Circuit decided that the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation in Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company was the most persuasive. Therefore, the court concluded that, to be an ATDS, a device must be capable of generating random and sequential numbers. In other words, the Seventh Circuit agrees that a device is not an ATDS merely because it dials from a stored list of numbers.

As previously reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, last Thursday the California Supreme Court ruled that employees must be paid for time spent undergoing security checks before leaving work. The ruling comes two years after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sought guidance on this issue under California law in the case of Amanda Frlekin v. Apple Inc.  The question presented to the California Supreme Court was:  Is time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices ...