Hunton Retail Law Resource

We recently posted an article on Hunton’s Privacy & Information Security Law Blog on the hotly contested and highly anticipated ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s case against SolarWinds Corporation and its Chief Information Security Officer.  In a decision issued last Thursday, July 18, SolarWinds beat most of the claims filed by the SEC over the company’s cyber practices.

Our full analysis on the SEC/SolarWinds decision please see:  Judge Dismisses Most of SEC Case Against SolarWinds and Its CISO.

Earlier this week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent cease-and-desist letters to several companies warning them that their products, which were marketed to mimic popular children’s snacks, ran the risk of unintended consumption of the Delta-8 THC by children. In addition to the FDA’s concerns regarding marketing an unsafe food additive, the agencies warned that imitating non-THC-containing food products often consumed by children through the use of advertising or labeling is misleading under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC noted that “preventing practices that present unwarranted health and safety risks, particularly to children, is one of the Commission’s highest priorities.”

We recently posted an article on Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Blog regarding the recent system outages worldwide. Companies should review their insurance policies to determine whether they may provide coverage for lost business income due to the outage. For more information click here.

Earlier this month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released its Spring 2024 Regulatory Flexibility Agenda, which sets out the SEC’s rulemaking agenda for the upcoming year. Some observers may have been wondering if Chair Gensler and the SEC would plan to advance any further rulemaking actions before the November elections. It is true that actions could be taken ahead of the proposed dates in the agenda, but many signs point to the SEC proceeding deliberately and without undue haste with this round of rulemaking. Several agenda items in the proposed and final rule stages from prior RegFlex agendas have been postponed to April 2025.

The FTC recently updated its “Made in USA” business guidance (see our prior reporting on the agency’s finalizing its “Made in USA” Labeling Rule). The updated business guidance reiterates the longstanding “all or virtually all” standard and explains that companies have an ongoing obligation to review their Made in USA claims in marketing materials, both to comply with the Made in USA Labeling Rule (for claims made on product labels) and with the FTC’s Made in USA Policy Statement (for claims generally). The FTC also applies the “Made in USA” standards to domestic origin statements like “Manufactured in USA,” “Built in USA,” “USA,” “true American quality,” and “Our products are American-made.” The staff provides new examples in the guidance to help businesses understand what kinds of Made in USA claims are covered.

In March 2024, Washington State became the first-in-the-nation to pass an almost complete ban on the manufacture and sale of cookware containing lead. Starting in January 2026, HB 1551 sets the maximum lead content level for cookware and cookware components at five (5) parts per million (ppm). The law is both broad in scope and stringent in its lead limit, making it important for entities that sell cookware or offer cookware for sale in the state of Washington to begin thinking about compliance now.

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up a wage and hour case, E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, to address a circuit split regarding the standard of proof that employers must satisfy to show that employees are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, addressing the question of whether a company can use bankruptcy to resolve the liability of non-debtor third parties.  The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and an injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge the claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants.

What if courts used artificial intelligence (AI) to determine the plain meaning of undefined terms, including terms in insurance policies? Eleventh Circuit Judge Newsom ponders that very question in his concurring opinion in Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Company, decided May 28, 2024. In a recent Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog post discussing the intersection of AI and insurance, insurance coverage partner Michael S. Levine and associate Alex D. Pappas unpack Judge Newsom’s concurring opinion. In doing so, they not only discuss the pros and cons of using AI to discern the plain meaning of certain words and phrases, but they discuss whether AI can answer a vexing question on the minds of insurers and policyholders alike: what is AI and how should it be defined?

The FTC is once again taking issue with hidden fees, suing Adobe, Inc., alleging the company and two corporate executives deceived consumers by hiding the early termination fee for a popular subscription plan and making it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions.