Hunton Retail Law Resource

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.

A new bill in the California Assembly has the potential to alter substantially the existing legal framework of products liability for online retailers. Assembly Bill No. 1182 (“AB 1182”), which was introduced on February 18, 2021, would impose strict products liability on online retailers who (1) communicate offers of sale and (2) facilitate payment between a third-party seller and a purchaser, even if the online retailer never takes physical possession of the product.

While there were already a number of high profile retail bankruptcies in 2019, current economic conditions and pandemic-related market challenges have exacerbated an already difficult retail environment, which has led to a significant increase in bankruptcies in 2020. Year to date, more than 30 major retail and restaurant chains have filed for bankruptcy, which is more than in all of 2019. Furthermore, 2020 is on track to have the highest number of retail bankruptcies in 10 years. Although the Q4 holiday season often provides the strongest quarterly financial performance for many retailers, which may slow the pace of bankruptcy filings, projected holiday sales numbers may be uncertain this year, and additional bankruptcies are still likely to follow by year end.

On July 23, 2020, U.S. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky introduced H.R.7756 to require online marketplaces to verify and disclose to consumers certain information regarding high-volume third-party sellers of consumer products. The goal of the bill is to combat the sale of stolen, counterfeit, and dangerous consumer products by requiring transparency of third-party sellers on online retail marketplaces.

In a 5-4 decision with major implications for e-commerce retailers, the Supreme Court has closed the “online sales tax loophole” by holding that a state may collect sales tax from out-of-state sellers that do not maintain a physical presence in the state. The decision, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. et al., No. 17-494, 585 U.S. __ (2018), overturns two prior Supreme Court cases holding that an out-of-state seller’s duty to collect and remit tax to a consumer’s home state depended on whether the seller had a physical presence in that state. The Court found that this “Physical ...

October ushered in a case that might, on one hand, provoke a sigh of relief for manufacturers, distributors and retailers concerned about the upward trend in multimillion dollar civil penalties from the CPSC or, on the other hand, raise some eyebrows of concern about the extent of a court’s authority to prospectively impose auditing, compliance and training measures. See United States v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., No. 15-CV-371-WMC, 2017 WL 4339677 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 29, 2017).

Last month, the solar eclipse captivated the United States and many consumers flocked to purchase solar eclipse glasses to safely observe the astronomical phenomenon. We previously reported how NASA issued a safety alert advising consumers on the proper eye protection they should seek. Now, some consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against a major online retailer for allegedly selling “unfit, extremely dangerous, and/or defective” solar eclipse glasses. As a result, the consumers allege “varying degrees of eye injury ranging from temporary discomfort to permanent blindness.”

As consumers celebrated lower avocado prices at Whole Foods during the last week in August, views were mixed regarding the FTC’s decision not to challenge the Amazon/Whole Foods merger.

On August 23, 2017, the FTC’s Bureau of Competition issued a short statement that read, in its entirety: “The FTC conducted an investigation of this proposed acquisition to determine whether it substantially lessened competition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, or constituted an unfair method of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Based on our investigation we have decided not to pursue this matter further. Of course, the FTC always has the ability to investigate anticompetitive conduct should such action be warranted.”

It’s probably painfully obvious to companies in the retail industry and beyond that the old paradigm of the retail shopping center is being permanently altered by e-commerce, as well as changing consumer preferences. As the old-guard stalwarts of retail begin to shutter stores or fold completely, it is up to both landlords and existing anchor tenants to adapt to the changing landscape, or risk prolonged periods of high vacancy.

One of the areas which can hamper efforts to re-tenant spaces are the restrictive covenants contained in both declarations governing shopping centers and ...

The Santa Barbara City Council, in an effort to combat the retail malaise on State Street in Downtown Santa Barbara, has approved a pilot program that would streamline the permit and review process for potential commercial tenants.

With the National Retail Foundation estimating 8 to 12 percent growth in U.S. e-commerce in 2017, retailers across the country are vying to compete for a piece of the $400B+ pie. Crucial to their efforts is that retailers offer a seamless online and in-home customer experience, which includes maximizing shipping and returns efficiencies. But equally as important is that retailers remain compliant with FTC regulations and state unfair competition and business practices laws, in order to minimize their exposure to an ever-expanding putative class of the 80 percent of Americans who place online orders each year.

In that vein, we have previously reported and advised on the rise in ADA and TCCWNA claims in 2015 and 2016. Now, over the past few months, a new trend has emerged that has ramifications for virtually every participant in the online retail space: a rise in the number of class action claims challenging allegedly excessive shipping & handling (“S&H”) fees. Regardless whether an online retailer offers flat or incremental S&H fees, standard and expedited S&H options or free shipping with returns-only S&H fees, few are immune from claims that the fees charged do not align perfectly with retailers’ underlying shipping costs.

In the early 1990s, before everyone could instantly buy almost anything from their smartphone, the proposed combination of QVC network and Home Shopping Network (“HSN”) reportedly was shuttered due to antitrust concerns.

Recently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a $31 million dollar jury award in favor of retailer Lord & Taylor for lost profits in connection with a breach of its reciprocal easement agreement (“REA”) with D.C.-area mall owner White Flint, LP. The court found White Flint’s efforts to redevelop the regional mall into a mixed-use project violated the terms of the REA under which the mall landlord agreed to maintain the site as a “first-class high fashion regional Shopping Center.”

Many online retailers are exploring how to use drones to quickly deliver online orders to customers. In June 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) issued a final rule permitting flights by commercial drones under certain conditions, including the drone and its cargo weigh less than 55 pounds and the drone stays within sight of the pilot. While the rule was a welcome step forward for the commercial drone industry, the operational restrictions prohibited drones to fly over any populated areas due to safety concerns, essentially forbidding commercial drones in most urban areas.

TCCWNA case law has continued to develop with no end in sight. Recently, courts have grappled with definitional questions that could impact the scope of the law and affect sellers of consumer goods and services.

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

Eleventh Circuit Stays FTC Order in LabMD Case

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed an FTC Final Order requiring the now-defunct LabMD to implement numerous compliance measures stemming from a 2008 data leak. In July, the FTC ordered LabMD to establish an information security program and notify those affected by the data leak. LabMD closed in January 2014, citing prohibitive costs related to the FTC litigation. An Eleventh Circuit panel found that “[t]he costs of complying with the FTC’s Order would cause LabMD irreparable harm,” noting that the company has under $5,000 cash on hand, a pending $1 million judgment against it and is no longer operational. The court granted LabMD’s motion to stay the Order pending appeal.

Traditional shopping malls across the country are facing a decreasing amount of customers, declining profits, and, in certain cases, overall viability. Though numerous specialty malls continue to be quite profitable, many regional shopping malls are not as fortunate. Online retailers dominate an ever increasing share of the retail market, and the retailers that have traditionally made up mall tenants may no longer see the value in as many, or any, brick and mortar stores. Due in large part to the convenience and success of online retailers, American consumers generally spend less time shopping at brick and mortar stores, opting instead to shop from their computers or other media devices. In response, and out of necessity, major department stores have dramatically consolidated their number of locations over the past few years. Regional malls anchored by troubled department stores such as Sears and Macy’s are perhaps faring the worst. 

On October 3, 2016, Amazon announced that it will eliminate most incentivized reviews – reviews written by customers in exchange for free or discounted products – except those reviews facilitated through the Amazon Vine program. Amazon, which has always banned compensated reviews, previously had allowed businesses to offer free samples to customers in exchange for reviews, as long as customers disclosed the fact of the incentive. In theory, customers receiving free products should have provided unbiased reviews; a recent study, however, showed the average rating for ...

As retailers continue to look for new and innovative ways to maintain communication and “touch points” with their customers, many are looking to technology-infused or “smart” packaging and advertising materials. There are many ways to drive customer interaction and web traffic through smart packaging and advertising materials, including through the use of hyperlinks, quick response (“QR”) codes and near field communication (“NFC”) chips. 

The tidal wave of New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) claims just swept up a novel argument: a class complaint against Facebook, Inc. argues that the popular social media site’s terms of use is subject to TCCWNA because Facebook profits from users’ personal information and intellectual property.

For many consumers, online reviews play a role in the decision to make any purchase. Before making dinner reservations, choosing a hotel, hiring a service provider or even buying a toaster, consumers often look to online reviews as an assessment of the product, service or experience they want to buy. In a market where a negative online review or rating from a dissatisfied customer can influence countless other potential buyers — not just people the dissatisfied customer knows in real life — companies have a strong incentive to maintain a positive reputation online. However, in a desire to separate themselves from the competition with strong reviews, some companies have taken the race for positive online reviews too far, and the Federal Trade Commission is watching.

TCCWNA. The very acronym evokes head scratches and sighs of angst and frustration amongst many lawyers in the retail industry. You have probably heard about it. You may have even been warned about it. And you may currently be trying to figure out how best to minimize your risk and exposure this very moment. But what is it and why has virtually every retailer been hit with a TCCWNA class action demand letter or lawsuit in the past few months? And why are most retailers scrambling to update the terms and conditions of their websites?

Earlier this month, teen clothing retailer Aéropostale filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, seeking to immediately close 154 of its over 800 stores located throughout the United States and Canada. Many of these stores are located in smaller shopping malls, which have been hit the hardest by the shift to online shopping.

The continued march of retail bankruptcies since 2015 includes Sports Authority, Vestis Retail Group, Inc. (the operator of Sports Chalet, Eastern Mountain Sports, and Bob’s Stores), Radio Shack, American Apparel, Quicksilver, Wet Seal, Delia’s and PacSun.

On April 27, 2016, a federal district court judge in the Western District of Washington ruled that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) had proven that Amazon.com had engaged in unfair business practices in billing Amazon account holders for in-app charges without express, informed consent to such charges. At the same time, the judge denied the FTC’s request for a permanent injunction against Amazon, finding no cognizable danger of a recurring violation. The judge ordered additional briefing on calculating monetary relief.

This week, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2010 Colorado law (Colo. Rev. Stat. §39-21-112.3.5) requiring out-of-state retailers that do not collect sales tax from Colorado consumers to report transactions to state taxing authorities, in an effort to boost state “use tax” compliance. The Colorado statute requires out-of-state retailers to (1) remind consumers with each transaction that their purchase may be subject to state “use tax” laws; (2) deliver an “annual purchase summary” to any customers with transactions totaling greater than $500 in any year; and (3) annually report the transaction information to state taxing authorities. There is an exception for "retailers who made less than $100,000 in total gross sales in Colorado in the previous calendar year, and who reasonably expect gross sales in the current calendar year to be less than $100,000."