Hunton Retail Law Resource

On April 26, 2018, the U.S. Senate confirmed by unanimous consent all five pending nominees to the Federal Trade Commission. Once installed, the agency will have a full complement of commissioners for the first time in nearly three years. The FTC will be comprised of three Republicans—Joseph Simons (Chairman), Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine Wilson—and two Democrats—Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Rohit Chopra.

FTC Commissioners serve staggered seven-year terms. April 27, 2018, is Democrat Terrell McSweeny’s last day at the FTC, and Simons will take over her seat, which ...

Since the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014)—and particularly in light of the Court’s more recent decisions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) and BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017)—courts across the country have applied a more exacting standard for assessing whether defendants can be subject to general personal jurisdiction in a particular forum. Under this standard, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s contacts with the forum are so continuous and systematic as to render it “essentially at home” there. In most instances, a company is “essentially at home” only in the state where it is incorporated and the state where it operates its principal place of business. This has been a largely positive result for companies in the retail product industry that may have strategic incentive to avoid becoming subject to “all purpose” general personal jurisdiction in each state in which their products are sold.

As reported on Hunton’s Employment and Labor Perspective blog, earlier this month San Francisco amended its Fair Chance Ordinance, the city and county’s so-called “ban-the-box” legislation that limits how private employers can use an applicant’s criminal history in employment decisions. The amendments, which take effect on October 1, 2018, expand the scope and penalties of the San Francisco ordinance and add to the growing framework of ban-the-box legislation across California and other states.

On April 10, 2018, SAP announced an updated pricing model to address indirect/digital access to its digital core products—SAP ERP, SAP S/4HANA and SAP S/4HANA Cloud. In addition, SAP announced that it will separate its license sales department and auditing departments. These moves are in response to intense pressure SAP has experienced from existing and potential customers that culminated last year following (1) the decision rendered in favor of the software giant against one of its customers, where £55 million in damages was alleged by SAP, and (2) its $600 million claim against the world’s largest brewer which was recently reported as having been settled.

The tidal wave of New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Notice and Warranty Act (“TCCWNA”) cases may finally slow to a trickle: a long-awaited decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court came down Monday, April 16, 2018, that will likely have broad repercussions on who has standing to sue under the statute.

E-commerce and online shopping are here to stay, but the explosion of new technology and the number of resources available to facilitate online shopping is an opportunity for retailers to embrace new ideas and concepts that will increase foot traffic to their physical locations. The store-within-a-store concept isn’t new, but the type of store-within-a-store retailers have conventionally seen is changing and bringing in new business.

This past week, several self-regulatory advertising decisions made retail headlines.

Finish Quantum Dishwasher Detergent Beaten by “Unbeatable” Claim

In response to a challenge brought by P&G, the NAD recommended that Reckitt Benckiser LLC, manufacturer of dishwasher detergent brand Finish Quantum, discontinue its claims that the detergent provides an “unbeatable clean.” After reviewing Finish Quantum’s test data, the NAD determined that the “evidence was not sufficiently reliable to support the challenged ‘unbeatable clean’ claim.” Finish Quantum can, however, continue use of its value claim that its product provides “25% more loads,” so long as the claim is qualified by adding the phrase, “based on retail pack size comparison” between Finish Quantum and leading alternatives such as Cascade Platinum. Reckitt Benckiser stated that it will comply with the NAD’s recommendations.

Our retail clients are increasingly deploying cloud services solutions to realize cost savings, gain efficiency and enable scalability across numerous functions. In the past year, we have helped our clients deploy dozens of cloud-based point solutions, Enterprise Resource Planning systems and multi-application platforms. And our clients are not alone. One study forecasts that, in 2020, the worldwide public cloud service revenue will be $411.48 billion. However, while the benefits and popularity of cloud services are clear, cloud solutions are not without risks and challenges.

On the heels of a recent $5 million civil penalty, the CPSC recently secured a $1.5 million civil penalty with help from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The civil penalty concludes a long saga between the CPSC and a large arts and crafts retailer about vases with allegedly defective thin glass that rendered them prone to shattering.

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

Nectar Brand to Put Its “Made in America” Claims to Bed

Nectar Brand LLC has agreed to stop making unqualified claims that its mattresses were made in the United States. According to the FTC’s complaint, Nectar Brand sells mattresses under several brand names, including Nectar Sleep, DreamCloud LLC and DreamCloud Brand LLC. Nectar Brand’s ads and product labeling included statements that the products were “Designed and Assembled in USA.” In fact, the FTC alleged that the mattresses all are imported from China and that Nectar Brand has no assembly operations in the U.S.

Under the settlement terms, Nectar Brand is prohibited from representing that its products are made in the United States unless it can substantiate its claims. Further, Nectar Brand’s officers are prohibited from misrepresenting the country of origin of its products.