Hunton Retail Law Resource

On June 3, 2016, Hunton & Williams LLP published a video discussing a 2015 ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) as it relates to the real estate industry, which fundamentally alters the joint-employer standard. The ruling has already been making waves in the retail industry as the NLRB seeks to apply the new standards to hold certain franchisors liable for the employment violations of its franchisees. The decision comes in an era of increased reliance on third party contractors and staffing agencies to fulfill companies’ staffing requirements and, with recent NLRB action, is being expanded to hold franchisors liable as joint-employers. Under the new standards, an entity can be held liable, as a joint-employer, for the violations of another if the entity retains to itself the ability to effect the terms and conditions of the other’s employees.

This week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Teavana Settles with Consumer Product Safety Commission

Teavana, a Starbucks-owned tea retailer, settled allegations with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) that Starbucks failed to report complaints of exploded tea tumblers. The settlement split the Commission on a company’s obligation to report complaints to the agency. Commissioner Joseph P. Mohorovic, who opposed the settlement with its $3.75 million civil penalty, said that Teavana did not have a clear obligation to report the complaints saying, “The [Consumer Product Safety Act] and our rules under it do not establish a clear line for when a company must report, but at best blurred zone of indecision.”

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

FTC to Host Consumer Disclosure Workshop in September

The Federal Trade Commission has announced that it will be hosting a September 15, 2016 workshop, “Putting Disclosures to the Test,” on the efficacy and costs of consumer disclosures in advertising and in privacy policies. Planned discussion topics include examining disclosures meant to avoid deception in advertising, disclosures designed to inform consumers of data tracking, and industry-specific disclosures for jewelry, environmental and fuel-saving claims. The workshop is open to the public and will take place at the FTC’s Constitution Center offices in Washington, D.C. The FTC currently is soliciting presentation proposals for the workshop; submissions may be sent to disclosuretesting@ftc.gov.

Seattle may be the next municipality to propose a predictable scheduling ordinance requiring employers to provide advanced notice of work schedules and compensation in the event schedules are changed. The Seattle City Council’s Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee recently initiated regular meetings to discuss the issue of “Secure Scheduling,” and confirmed plans to continue discussions over the next several months to further develop the proposed ordinance. The Mayor’s office is also pursuing its own inquiry into this issue. 

As we previously reported, the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins has been nearly universally lauded by defense counsel as a new bulwark against class actions alleging technical violations of federal statutes. It may be that. But Spokeo also poses a significant threat to defendants by defeating their ability to remove exactly the types of cases that defendants most want in federal court. The decision circumscribes the federal jurisdiction, with all its advantages, that defendants have enjoyed under Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) for the past decade.

This past week, the National Advertising Division (“NAD”) of the BBB issued a number of opinions and recommendations.

NAD Recommends Clorox Packaging Change

The NAD has issued a recommendation that The Clorox Company modify its packaging and a package insert to ensure consumers understand that Clorox’s zinc pyrithione works to prevent odors on the drawstring of the company’s “Glad Tall Kitchen Drawstring Bags.”

The issue was not whether the product worked as described, but whether the branding and description led consumers to believe that the product protected against food-borne or disease-causing bacteria or germs.

NAD’s conclusion was that “the combined design elements, in the context in which they are found on the product packaging, reasonably conveyed a confusing, if not inaccurate, message as to the specific antimicrobial protection offered...[and] that consumers could reasonably understand ‘antimicrobial protection’ to mean protection from bacteria and germs rather than odor produced by bacteria and germs on the drawstring.”

A world of driverless, or autonomous, cars is much closer than we may think, and it will leave an indelible mark on retail real estate development, according to a GlobeStreet interview with Angelo Carusi, a principal at architecture and design firm Cooper Carry. According to numerous automobile industry experts, driverless cars will be in use and on the roads within the next 10 years.

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

Cheez-It Whole Grain Crackers ‘Not Ready,’ lawsuit claims

The Kellogg Company is being sued over its “whole grain” Cheez-It crackers. According to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the claim that these crackers are whole grain is “false and misleading, because the primary ingredient in Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers is enriched white flour.”

While the Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers do contain some whole wheat flour, plaintiffs argue it is almost negligible. A comparison of the Cheez-It Original crackers and the Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers shows identical nutritional values in every category, except fiber. The Original crackers contain “less than 1g,” while the Whole Grain crackers contain 1 gram.

Plaintiffs argue the Cheez-It claims are thus misleading, and have caused consumers to purchase or pay a premium for a product, that they otherwise would not have paid. The Kellogg Company has denied any misconduct, including any alleged impropriety in its labeling.

As we previously reported, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia had granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking the proposed Staples-Office Depot merger. Earlier this week, Judge Sullivan released a public version of the opinion supporting his decision.

On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, Case No. 13-1339, a case that businesses and the plaintiffs’ bar have been following closely, due largely to its potential effect on class actions predicated on alleged statutory violations and seeking solely statutory damages. In an opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court held that a plaintiff must do more than plead a statutory procedural violation to establish standing; to plead an injury in fact, a plaintiff also must allege a harm that is both “concrete” and “particularized.” However, the Court did not apply its holding to the facts, instead remanding for further analysis by the Ninth Circuit. While both plaintiffs’ attorneys and defense attorneys are claiming a “victory,” Spokeo provides some ammunition for businesses that find themselves facing so-called “no-injury” class action lawsuits predicated on consumer protection statutes.