Welcome to Class Dismissed

Morrison & Foerster is pleased to announce the launch of our new Class Dismissed blog. Through Class Dismissed, attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices provide insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies.


Welcome to Class Dismissed

Morrison & Foerster is pleased to announce the launch of our new Class Dismissed blog. Through Class Dismissed, attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices provide insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. ...›

Pharma

Bristol-Myers Squibb: The Aftermath

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of specific personal jurisdiction in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”). Mass tort defendants have wasted little time in moving to dispose of claims from nonresident plaintiffs under this ruling. As previously reported, on June 19, 2017, the ...›

August 1, 2017CPSC

Trump Nominates Buerkle as Permanent CPSC Chair

On July 24, 2017, the White House announced President Trump’s intent to nominate Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY) as the next Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for a seven year term beginning October 27, 2018.  She currently serves as a Commissioner at CPSC and as Acting Chair.  As we recently reported, CPSC will ...›

Warning: New Proposition 65 Warning Regulations Taking Effect

A year from now, dramatic changes to California’s Proposition 65 warning regulations take full effect. The new regulations (formally published by the State in August 2016) significantly alter the “safe harbor” rules for providing Prop 65 warnings. Companies that have not yet started preparing for the implications of these new rules will need to do ...›

July 27, 2017CPSC, Product Liability

Shift In CPSC Leadership Means More Changes To Come

At the midpoint of 2017, we look back on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s activity under the new administration, including how recalls and penalties stack up against previous years, new focal points for safety initiatives and enforcement and an interesting development from the White House that could affect the CPSC’s regulatory approach in the ...›

FDA’s Denial of Citizen’s Petition “Clear” Enough for Preemption of Failure-to-Warn Claims

The Tenth Circuit recently upheld a Utah district court’s finding that a branded drug manufacturer could not be held liable for failing to warn consumers about alleged birth defect risks when the FDA had previously rejected a citizen’s petition calling for the same warnings.  Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc., No. 16-4050 (10th Cir. May 2, 2017). ...›

California Adopts First Green Chemistry Regulations for Children’s Nap Mats and Provides Important Guidance for Its Alternatives Analysis

California took two important steps forward to implement its new Green Chemistry Initiative, also known as the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Program, to regulate and encourage replacement of toxic chemicals in consumer products.  First, it adopted new regulations for its first priority product, children’s foam-padded sleeping products that contain the flame retardants TDCPP or TCEP,[1] ...›

Supreme Court Says “No” to “Litigation Tourism”

There has been a lot said already about the effect on product liability (especially drug) cases and “mass actions” as a result of the United States Supreme Court’s June 17, 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, No. 16-466.  But what about consumer class actions?  California is a destination venue not ...›

Court Declines to Certify Class in False Advertising Case Without Survey Evidence of a Common Consumer Definition

On June 7, 2017, a Central District Court of California declined to certify a class of consumers who alleged that 5-Hour Energy’s marketing of an energy drink was misleading, finding that individual factual questions regarding the effect of 5-Hour Energy’s advertising statements on consumers predominated over questions common to all plaintiffs.  In re 5-Hour Energy ...›