For all of you who know the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), you know that the agency distinctly does not have authority over tobacco or tobacco products. This arguably wasn’t always the case. Early on, the American Public Health Association petitioned the CPSC to regulate cigarettes containing more than 21 mg of tar. When
We recently wrote about the potential dark side of store loyalty cards, citing a putative class action filed in New York City. In the wake of a decision denying classification in that case we discussed earlier, our concern has been somewhat alleviated. In his August 6, 2015 decision, a federal judge said that data of
Selling to consumers is generally a beneficial enterprise for all involved, but occasionally businesses will need to recall products, for a myriad of reasons. When that happens, different sets of rules apply depending on the type of product that is impacted. If your product falls under the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) jurisdiction, one
A California appeals court has affirmed a trial court ruling that averaging exposure to reproductive toxicants over a relevant “window of susceptibility” time period specific to the chemical, and across product lots, was appropriate in a Proposition 65 case involving lead in baby and toddler foods. Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Corp., (A129831, Alameda County
