On May 8, 2025, President Donald Trump removed all three Democratic commissioners from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), dramatically reshaping the agency’s leadership. Those dismissed commissions are Richard L. Trumka Jr., Mary Boyle and former CPSC Chairman
Today’s post in our pet food series focuses on federal oversight of pet food. At the federal level, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates pet food similar to that for other animal foods. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
At long last, the Securities and Exchange Commission has finalized its rules regarding disclosures for climate-related risk for public companies. The SEC significantly softened the rules since the last proposal, including phasing in requirements based on company size, dropping Scope
The “chasing arrows” symbol has been ubiquitous since its introduction in the late 1980’s. Consumers interpret packaging bearing the symbol as recyclable, but according to CalRecycle, the state agency with authority over recycling and waste management, whether a material is
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) is once again attempting to change the Proposition 65 safe harbor warning regulations. OEHHA has twice before attempted to make changes to the short-form warnings. Each time, industry has pushed back, and
Prop 65 claims for alleged exposure to acrylamide in food are all too common. In the first three months of 2021 alone there have been 109 acrylamide notices issued. Acrylamide is not a chemical that is intentionally added to food,
We’ve previously published analyses on the California Air Resource Board’s (ARB) case settlements related to cosmetic products, but there are a whole host of other consumer products also subject to ARB enforcement. We thought it would be helpful to provide some insight into these as well.
A recent look-back at California Air Resource Board (CARB) case settlements highlights that cosmetics remain a target for CARB enforcement of its General Consumer Products Regulation.
Question: What’s the difference between $600,000 and $14 million in a contempt action? Answer: Presumption of consumer reliance, according to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Federal Trade Commission v. BlueHippo Funding, LLC.
The case began in 2003,