Lauren Shoor (US)

Subscribe to all posts by Lauren Shoor (US)

Six months: how the new Proposition 65 regulations have impacted retailer enforcement

By Lauren Shoor (US) on April 7, 2019 Posted in California Proposition 65

It’s been about six months since the new Proposition 65 regulations allocated the primary responsibility for providing warnings to suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and importers, while limiting retailers’ responsibility to limited, specified circumstances. Many wondered what impact these new regulations would have on the enforcement of Proposition 65 against retailers. Six months in, the answer still … Continue reading

Proposition 65 survival guide

By Jeff Margulies (US), Will Troutman (US), Lauren Shoor (US) and Andy Guo (US) on August 30, 2018 Posted in California Proposition 65

At long last, it’s here—OEHHA’s long-awaited amendments to the Proposition 65 “clear and reasonable warning” regulations become mandatory for products manufactured on and after August 30, 2018. As we are sure you’ve probably heard ad nauseam by now, the revisions make two key changes to the Proposition 65 regulations: (1) for the first time, they … Continue reading

California Proposition 65 amended warning regulations

By Jeff Margulies (US), Will Troutman (US), Lauren Shoor (US) and Andy Guo (US) on August 30, 2018 Posted in California Proposition 65

On August 30, 2016, OEHHA’s long-awaited amendments to the Proposition 65 clear and reasonable warning regulations became final. The amendments bring two major changes: (1) an allocation of responsibility for providing warnings between retailers and suppliers; and (2) revisions to the safe harbor warning requirements, including warning content and methods of transmission. Allocation of responsibility … Continue reading

Washington restricts flame retardants in children’s products and upholstered furniture

By Will Troutman (US) and Lauren Shoor (US) on May 26, 2017 Posted in Green chemistry, Recent legislation and regulations

On July 1, 2017, Washington’s “Toxic-Free Kids and Families Act” goes into effect, restricting the use of the following five flame retardants in children’s products and residential upholstered furniture: Additive TBBPA Deca-BDE HBCD (HBCDD) TDCPP TCEP Under the Act, manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are prohibited from manufacturing, knowingly selling, offering for sale, or distributing for sale or … Continue reading

Prop 65 safe harbor level for BPA finalized

By Jeff Margulies (US), Will Troutman (US) and Lauren Shoor (US) on June 21, 2016 Posted in California Proposition 65

Following the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s proposed regulations for temporary point-of-sale warnings for BPA exposures from canned and bottled foods and beverages, this week OEHHA finalized the Maximum Allowable Dose Level for BPA of 3 micrograms per day from dermal exposure from solid materials. The MADL will go into effect on October … Continue reading

What makes for a $15 million CPSC penalty?

By Will Troutman (US) and Lauren Shoor (US) on March 25, 2016 Posted in Consumer product recalls, Consumer Product Safety Commission

CPSC just announced a record $15.4 million civil penalty settlement with Gree, manufacturers of dehumidifiers widely sold throughout the United States. While the magnitude of this blockbuster settlement makes it newsworthy, what it tells us about CPSC’s perspective on enforcement actions is the real story. CPSC’s allegations The limited allegations in the published settlement agreement allege … Continue reading

California Attorney General seeks to change Proposition 65 settlement landscape

By Lauren Shoor (US) on October 28, 2015 Posted in California Proposition 65

Continuing a flurry of activity this year to reform Proposition 65 in California, the Office of the Attorney General is proposing amendments to the Proposition 65 regulations that would affect settlement terms, penalty amounts, and attorneys’ fees in civil actions filed by private persons in the public interest. For a more detailed discussion of Proposition … Continue reading

Jerry Brown signs new California “Made in USA” law

By Lauren Shoor (US) on September 2, 2015 Posted in Recent legislation and regulations

Yesterday, California’s Governor Brown signed SB 633 into law. The new law exempts certain merchandise from the prohibition that merchandise being sold in California cannot be labeled with “Made in the USA” or similar words when the merchandise or any component has been entirely or substantially made outside of the United States. Made in the … Continue reading

CA Supreme Court won’t respond to question from Ninth Circuit on privacy law for credit card customers

By Lauren Shoor (US) on August 31, 2015 Posted in Recent consumer products case law

In addition to refusing to hear an appeal in Harrold v. Levi Strauss & Co., which we previously posted about, the California Supreme Court also declined to respond to a question the Ninth Circuit in Davis v. Devanlay Retail Group, Inc. certified to the Court, seeking clarification of California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act’s reach regarding … Continue reading

UPDATE: Cal. Supreme Court refuses review of privacy issue for credit card customers

By Lauren Shoor (US) on August 27, 2015 Posted in Recent consumer products case law

Yesterday the California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in Harrold v. Levi Strauss & Co., a case that clarified the scope of California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Civil Code section 1747.08, in the context of retailers’ requests for personal identification information from credit card customers standing at the point of sale in a … Continue reading

UPDATE: Bill to Amend California’s “Made in USA” Law on to Governor’s Desk

By Lauren Shoor (US) on August 18, 2015 Posted in Recent legislation and regulations

Yesterday, the California Senate voted unanimously to approve amendments made in the Assembly to SB 633. Now, SB 633 will move to Governor Brown for his approval. For more detail, check out our recent posts about pending legislation in California that would amend California’s “Made in the USA” law.… Continue reading

UPDATE: Bill to amend California’s “Made in USA” law gets one step closer to becoming law

By Lauren Shoor (US) on July 17, 2015 Posted in Consumer class actions, Recent consumer products case law, Recent legislation and regulations

Following up on our recent post about two bills pending in the California legislature that would amend California’s “Made in USA” law—yesterday the Assembly passed SB 633. Next, SB 633 will be sent back to the Senate for a concurrence vote, and assuming the Senate approves, the bill would then go on to the Governor’s … Continue reading

Changes coming to California’s “Made in USA” law?

By Lauren Shoor (US) on July 16, 2015 Posted in Consumer class actions, Recent legislation and regulations

California’s “Made in the USA” law imposes strict standards on when products may be labeled “Made in the USA.” This strict standard has resulted in recent litigation against companies whose products allegedly contain some (albeit relatively minor) foreign components. But, the Legislature is seeking to amend the law to loosen this standard with two pending … Continue reading

Court rules California “Made In USA” claims not actionable if only on product websites

By Lauren Shoor (US) on June 29, 2015 Posted in Consumer class actions, Federal Trade Commission

We have been following California’s “Made in the USA” standard and recent cases interpreting it. While courts so far have been reluctant to dismiss claims at the pleading stage, last week a federal judge dismissed a class action claiming Lands’ End violated California’s “Made in the USA” standard. In Oxina v. Lands’ End, Inc., plaintiff filed a false … Continue reading

California Court of Appeal finally issues guidance to retailers on privacy issue for credit card customers

By Lauren Shoor (US) on May 25, 2015 Posted in Consumer class actions, Recent consumer products case law

California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Civil Code section 1747.08, prohibits retailers from requesting or requiring “personal identification information” (PII) in connection with consumer credit card transactions and then recording that information. Following a February 2011 California Supreme Court opinion in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., plaintiffs filed hundreds of putative class action complaints against retailers … Continue reading

California’s Made In USA standard survives another test in court

By Lauren Shoor (US) on April 30, 2015 Posted in Consumer class actions, Recent consumer products case law

Another court in the Southern District of California has agreed that California’s Made in USA law is more stringent than the federal standard, holding that the law is not preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. But the court also addressed a new claim—that the California law violates … Continue reading

Lack of defendant’s consumer records may not mean a class is unascertainable

By Lauren Shoor (US) on March 24, 2015 Posted in Consumer class actions, Recent consumer products case law

A California Court of Appeal recently held that a class is not unascertainable simply because individual class members cannot be identified from a defendant’s records so long as there is some objective means for identifying class members. In Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc., plaintiff alleged that defendant Party America violated the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act … Continue reading

Making online terms and conditions stick

By Lauren Shoor (US) on March 2, 2015 Posted in Consumer class actions, General, Recent consumer products case law

Because the interaction between online retailers and their customers is limited, online retailers have little choice but to present terms and conditions of sale on their websites. These online terms and conditions present concepts important to online retailers, including arbitration and choice of law provisions. The way in which online retailers present these terms and … Continue reading

“All natural” claims against Dole nixed; no deception if synthetics expected in food

By Lauren Shoor (US) on December 11, 2014 Posted in Consumer class actions

As we previously posted in “All natural: FDA silence continues to create problems for false advertising defendants”, the Food and Drug Administration’s failure to provide a definition of what a “natural” ingredient is makes it difficult for companies defending against false advertising claims based on allegations that food products are marketed as “natural” when the product allegedly … Continue reading

UPDATE: Recent jeans case confirms harsher “Made In USA” standards exist in California

By Lauren Shoor (US) on October 30, 2014 Posted in Consumer class actions, Federal Trade Commission, Recent consumer products case law

A California federal district court judge recently provided some clarity on the apparent disparity between California’s “Made in the USA” law and the standard set forth by the Federal Trade Commission. The Southern District Court of California’s recent decision in Paz v. AG Adriano Goldschmied confirms that California’s “Made in the USA” standard sets forth … Continue reading

No more rubber stamps: courts critical of class action settlements

By Lauren Shoor (US) on October 29, 2014 Posted in Consumer class actions, Recent consumer products case law

A number of recent cases show courts taking a more active role in approving class action settlements, more closely scrutinizing settlements meant to benefit class members. Just last month in Redman v. RadioShack Corporation the Seventh Circuit rejected a class action settlement providing for dissemination of $10 coupons to class members and $1 million in … Continue reading

California closely scrutinizes “Made in the USA” claims

By Lauren Shoor (US) on September 29, 2014 Posted in Consumer class actions, Federal Trade Commission

Labeling products as “Made in the USA” has seen increased popularity recently, as retailers and manufacturers attempt to capitalize on consumers’ desire to support domestic jobs and US-made goods. Despite the seeming cachet of these statements, they may open companies up to false and misleading advertising claims, particularly in plaintiff-happy California. “Made in the USA” … Continue reading