Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Through Class Dismissed, attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Products Liability practices offer a real-time assessment of the developments in matters that are shaping the industry. This blog examines the full spectrum of consumer-related class action and product liability lawsuits ranging from false advertising, privacy, consumer product safety, ADA, food misbranding, TCPA, environment, retail, and government actions as well as nationwide and multidistrict litigation class actions.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

park_julie_blog_150x150.png

park_julie_common_640x280.jpg

park_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

park_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

park_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Julie Park protects her clients’ products no matter what kind of product issue they face—whether it is planning for new product development, recalling an existing product, or defending clients against product liability or consumer class actions. Drawing on her deep technical and legal expertise, Julie counsels clients on consumer product safety regulation and pharmaceutical and medical device preemption while also managing complex and multijurisdictional litigation both in state and federal court.

Julie Y. Park

<div class="videoWrapper"><iframe frameborder="0" class="sticky-video" allowfullscreen="1" title="Meet Penny Preovolos, Litigation Partner" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/hv7hYn-Bl7c?rel=0&showinfo=0;vq=hd1080" title="iframe"></iframe></div>Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products. According to Chambers USA, Penelope has a “great reputation for antitrust and product liability work” and is a “superb all-around antitrust lawyer.”Penelope was named the 2019 Antitrust Lawyer of the Year by the Antitrust, UCL, and Privacy Section of the California Lawyers Association. She was co-chair of MoFo’s antitrust practice for 14 years. She has served as chair of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Section of the State Bar of California and as a member of the Ninth Circuit Advisory Committee on Local Rules and Operations. She is an editor of and frequent contributor to Morrison & Foerster’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed blog</a>, as well as a frequent speaker about class action and antitrust issues.More About PenelopePenelope clerked for the Honorable Charles M. Merrill, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she was executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review. Penelope was a member of Phi Beta Kappa at the University of California, Berkeley. She was awarded the University Medal, the highest undergraduate honor at the university, as well as the English Departmental Citation (awarded to the outstanding graduate in that department).

preovolos_penelope_blog_150x150.png

preovolos_penelope_common_640x280.jpg

preovolos_penelope_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preovolos_penelope_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preovolos_penelope_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Counsel

Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products.

Penelope A. Preovolos

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class action lawsuits. Claudia also regularly counsels clients in the food, cosmetics, retail, and technology industries. She represents companies in false advertising disputes before the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.<h5>More about Claudia</h5>Claudia is active in MoFo’s pro bono efforts, and recently traveled to El Paso, Texas, to work with families separated and detained at the border. She is also supervising a pro bono collaboration with Equal Rights Advocates, a nonprofit fighting for gender justice in work places and schools across the country. The initiative will help students who have been victims of sexual assault, attempted assault, or harassment find support and seek justice. Claudia is also a board member of Bay Area Legal Aid and a former board member of Equal Rights Advocates. Claudia is an editor and frequent contributor to MoFo’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed</a> blog, which provides reports about the latest defense news, developments, and trends in class action lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Her perspectives are also respected in the larger legal community: Claudia has published articles about class action and false advertising issues, and is a co-author of Chapter 7 — “Unfair Competition in California Business Litigation 2016” — of The Recorder. She also regularly speaks at conferences on class action and advertising trends. Claudia is currently serving as a Lawyer Representative for the Northern District of California. She received her J.D. degree in 2004 from Berkeley Law (Boalt Hall School of Law), where she was an associate editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal.

vetesi_claudia_blog_150x150.png

vetesi_claudia_common_640x280.jpg

vetesi_claudia_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

vetesi_claudia_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

vetesi_claudia_social_600x600.jpg

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class actions.

Claudia M. Vetesi

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office.Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.Alexandra has significant trial experience. She has first-chaired a one-week jury trial and second-chaired a five‑week jury trial, both involving multiple claims and witnesses. She also has extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution, representing clients at mediations, mandatory settlement conferences, and early neutral evaluations.Alexandra enjoys tracking developments and keeping her clients updated on product liability and personal injury claims, frequently writing or presenting on emerging areas such as autonomous vehicles and smart devices. Alexandra’s experience also extends to professional liability, warranty claims, eminent domain, and construction law.Alexandra earned her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law. While in law school, the San Diego Law Review published her comment on the recovery of damages by plaintiffs in a persistent vegetative state, and she also served as a comment editor. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, where she majored in Political Science and minored in Spanish. A San Diego native, she attended a Spanish immersion school through the eighth grade. Alexandra is active in the San Diego community, advising students at a local college. She is also a member of several legal organizations in San Diego, including Lawyer’s Club, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and Wallace Inn of Court.

preece_alex_blog_150x150.png

preece_alex_common_640x280.jpg

preece_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preece_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preece_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra’s litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, AI, and robotics. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow

Adam J. Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.Mr. Hunt has extensive experience representing consumer products companies, financial institutions, and technology firms in class action cases and complex commercial disputes before state and federal trial courts, as well as in arbitrations. Clients seek Mr. Hunt’s counsel for his creative, strategic thinking in high-stakes, high-profile matters. He has represented clients facing claims under false advertising, antitrust, and privacy laws throughout the country, securing wins at the pleading stage, summary judgment, and trial, in addition to negotiating favorable settlements, often early in the case. Representative experience includes successfully securing rulings dismissing two putative false advertising class action cases against one of the best-known consumer electronics companies in the world; obtaining a complete win on summary judgment for a major shipping and logistics company in a multimillion-dollar commercial dispute; appearing as counsel at trial for a leading financial institution in a $100 million commercial dispute, winning a bench trial verdict; and prevailing on motions to dismiss false advertising class actions against a leading Greek yogurt company.Mr. Hunt is also an editor of the firm’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/" target="_self">Class Dismissed blog</a>, which provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class action lawsuits that affect consumer-facing companies.Mr. Hunt maintains an active pro bono practice and is the recipient of the New York State Bar Association’s 2017 President’s Pro Bono Service Award for the First Judicial Department, the 2018 Public Service Award from New York University School of Law, and Morrison Foerster’s Kathi Pugh Award for Pro Bono Services.Mr. Hunt received his B.A. with honors from Swarthmore College and his J.D. cum laude from New York University.

hunt_adam_blog_150x150.png

hunt_adam_common_640x280.jpg

hunt_adam_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

hunt_adam_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

hunt_adam_social_600x600.jpg

Adam Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.

Adam Hunt

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. Subscribe to receive the latest updates by attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices.

Welcome to Class Dismissed

class-dismissed-welcome-image.jpeg

class-dismissed-welcome-image

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. 

Class Action

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

The latest news and insights from the nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices of Morrison & Foerster.

Class Dismissed

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Class Dismissed Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from Class Dismissed. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Class Action and Product Insights for Your Business

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

TCPA

Announcements & Press

Antitrust

Appellate & Supreme Court

Arbitration

Autonomous Vehicles & Robotics

Aviation & Drones

Class Certification

Consumer Products

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

CPSC

Drug & Medical Device

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

Environmental Law

False Advertising

FCRA

Food Misbranding

Government Actions

Internet of Things

Mass Torts

Pharmaceutical & Medical Devices

Privacy

Product Liability

Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act)

Retail

Trials

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Alexandra Preece Barlow

Adam J. Hunt

The Future of Section 230: Protection Against Product Liability Claims?

New Wave of PFAS Legislation Aimed at Consumer Products

CPSC Releases Annual Report on Deaths and Injuries Involving Nursery Products

CPSC Proposes New Safety Rules for Infant Rockers

CPSC Commissioners Abstain from Retracting Infant Sleep Product Statements

We’re proud to announce that the online platform JD Supra has named Class Dismissed editors and frequent contributors <a href="https://www.mofo.com/people/erin-bosman.html">Erin M. Bosman </a>and<a href="https://www.mofo.com/people/julie-park.html"> Julie Y. Park</a> as recipients of the 2019 Readers’ Choice Awards. They were chosen from among the numerous writers who publish on JD Supra as the <a href="https://spotlight.jdsupra.com/readerschoice/list/51">leading authors of content in the product liability field</a>.In addition to helping the firm reach “Top Firm” status for its product liability content, Erin Bosman and Julie Park were recognized as the <a href="https://spotlight.jdsupra.com/readerschoice/list/75">Top Two Authors for Product Liability</a>, out of a pool of over 700 authors, for 2019.

Erin Bosman and Julie Park Receive “Readers’ Choice” Award

We’re proud to announce that the online platform JD Supra has named Class Dismissed editors and frequent contributors Erin M. Bosman and Julie Y. Park as recipi

Erin Bosman and Julie Park Receive “Readers’ Choice” Award

On January 16, Senators John Thune and Ed Markey reintroduced a bipartisan bill designed to update the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and ramp up enforcement against unwanted robocalls and text messages.[1]Purpose of TRACEDThe Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (S. 151) (TRACED) states that it aims to address the skyrocketing volume of automated calls in recent years. The Federal Trade Commission (FCC), which enforces the TCPA, reports that it received 4.5 million complaints about automated calls in 2017, more than double the complaints logged in 2013.[2] One report estimates that 42 percent of cellphone calls in 2019 will come from scammers.[3]Proposed Amendments to the TCPAThe bill aims to curb automated calls by focusing on three principles: authentication, enforcement, and blocking. In particular, it includes provisions that:<ol><li>Require voice service providers to adopt call authentication technologies that enable telephone carriers to verify that incoming calls are legitimate before they reach consumers’ phones;</li><li>Broaden the FCC’s authority to levy civil penalties of up to $10,000 per call on intentional violators of telemarketing restrictions;</li><li>Extend the current one-year window for the FCC to identify and take civil enforcement action against intentional violations to a new three-year window;</li><li>Direct the FCC to work jointly with the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Commerce, State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and other agencies and non-federal entities to identify methods to deter and criminally prosecute bad-faith actors; and</li><li>Direct the FCC to initiate a rulemaking to help protect subscribers from receiving unwanted calls or texts.[4]</li></ol>State Efforts to Reduce RobocallsStates have also reported they are cracking down on illegal automated calls. A coalition of 40 attorneys general, including California Attorney General Xavier Becarra, have joined to increase enforcement of entities placing unwanted calls. In February, California Senator Ben Hueso submitted a bill that requires telecommunications companies to take necessary steps to stop “neighbor spoofing” calls designed to appear as a local caller.[5] Beyond punishing scammers, this bill directs the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Attorney General’s Office to take action against telecommunications companies that fail to stop these calls.Collateral Impact on Legitimate BusinessesAlthough the proposed legislation is intended to focus on spam calls and texts sent by bad-faith actors, these laws could also impact legitimate businesses trying to reach their customers.[6] Legitimate businesses, such as healthcare providers and other consumer-facing businesses, may need to communicate pertinent and time-sensitive information to consumers who benefit from such communications. But neither the TCPA nor the FCC’s past interpretations of the Act clearly distinguished between illegitimate calls from spammers and communications from good-faith actors. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation recently commented that the FCC’s previous interpretations of the TCPA “have resulted in uncertainty about how those calling in good faith can comply with FCC regulations, making it more difficult for consumers to receive communications they want and need.”[7]The FCC’s broadened enforcement authority under the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, coupled with unclear definitions of spammers and auto-dialers, could lead to continuing challenges and increased litigation and enforcement activity in an area already subject to significant litigation.[1] S. 151 – TRACED Act, Congress.Gov (Jan. 16, 2019), <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/151/text">https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/151/text</a>; Thune, Markey Reintroduce Bill to Crack Down on Illegal Robocall Scams, John Thune: U.S. Senator for South Dakota (Jan. 17, 2019), https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=AFD16860-99EE-4940-9926-E88826F963B2.[2] Do Not Call Registry Data Book 2017: Complaint Figures by Year, Federal Trade Commission (last visited March 18, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/policy/reports/policy-reports/commission-staff-reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-fy-2.[3] Thune, Markey Reintroduce Bill to Crack Down on Illegal Robocall Scams, Ed Markey: United States Senator for Massachusetts (Jan. 17, 2019), https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/thune-markey-reintroduce-bill-to-crack-down-on-illegal-robocall-scams.[4] Id.[5] Andrew Sheeler, Sick of Robocalls? This California Bill Would Force Phone Companies to Crack Down on Them, The Sacramento Bee (Feb. 7, 2019), https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article225637395.html.[6] Id.[7] Senators Advocate for TCPA Clarity in Letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, ACA International (July 26, 2018), https://www.acainternational.org/news/senators-advocate-for-tcpa-clarity-in-letter-to-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai.

CCPA and Data Breach Class Action for Leading Software Company

BIPA Class Action Against Gaming and Hospitality Company

TCPA and Other Class Actions for Major Technology Company

Data Breach Class Action for Technology Company

Wiretap Act action against a Major Consumer Electronics Manufacturer

TCPA Class Action Against National Chain

In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation

In re Verizon Wireless Data Charges Litigation

cheung_tiffany_blog_150x150.png

cheung_tiffany_common_640x280.jpg

cheung_tiffany_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

cheung_tiffany_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

cheung_tiffany_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Tiffany for her successful track record in defending class action claims on behalf of clients in a broad range of industries, including technology, healthcare, and consumer product companies. She represents numerous Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes litigation involving privacy and marketing claims in courts throughout the United States.

Tiffany Cheung

Clients seek out Tiffany for her successful track record in defending class action claims on behalf of clients in a broad range of industries, including technology, healthcare, and consumer product companies. She represents numerous Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes litigation involving privacy and marketing claims in courts throughout the United States.

shutterstock_455813722-copy_thumbnail.jpg

Is a TCPA Overhaul on the Horizon?

shutterstock_455813722-copy_image.jpg

On January 16, Senators John Thune and Ed Markey reintroduced a bipartisan bill designed to update the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and ramp up enfo

Is a TCPA Overhaul on the Horizon?

At a recent product safety conference, Ann Marie Buerkle, Acting Chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), announced CPSC’s priorities for 2019. These include technology—both for consumers and within the agency—as well as window coverings and furniture tipover. Buerkle surprised the audience with a stern warning that any clothing storage not complying with ASTM’s F2057-17 standard will be deemed to have a defect that could pose a substantial product hazard.Buerkle’s Address at the Annual ICPHSO MeetingBuerkle addressed the annual meeting of the International Consumer Product Health & Safety Organization (ICPHSO), a nonprofit organization that brings together diverse stakeholders. Attendees included manufacturers, retailers, standards organizations, service providers, government agencies, and consumer advocates. This year, the meeting took place in Washington, D.C., to facilitate attendance by regulators, particularly on the day known as “CPSC Day.” Fittingly, CPSC Day opened with Buerkle’s address outlining CPSC’s priorities.IoTBuerkle opened with a topic at the top of everyone’s minds—the Internet of Things (IoT). CPSC recognizes that IoT is here to stay. Although the agency recognizes the urgency of moving quickly in this area to keep up with technology, CPSC appears to be still evaluating possible IoT policy initiatives. Buerkle reminded the audience about CPSC’s past activity in this space, including its January 2017 report, “<a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/content/potential-hazards-associated-with-emerging-and-future-technologies">Potential Hazards Associated with Emerging and Future Technologies</a>,” and its May 2018 hearings on this topic. She also previewed processes CPSC plans to put in place to address emerging technologies, such as reassigning staff to dedicate their efforts solely on IoT, creating an interagency working group, coordinating with the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence on IoT and Home Safety, and collaborating with voluntary standards organizations.Technology at CPSCIn addition to addressing technology advances outside the agency, Buerkle announced some technology upgrades within the agency. She spoke of the <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/content/cpsc-releases-new-recall-app">recall app</a> that CPSC recently rolled out. She proudly congratulated the developers of CPSC’s <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2019/robot-reboot-cpsc-launches-upgraded-regulatory-robot-tool-to-help-small-business-community">regulatory robot 2.0</a>, which can help assess the regulatory framework that applies to a particular product. And she welcomed the coming changes to CPSC’s SaferProducts.gov website, born out of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and now due for a refresh. Though not addressed by Buerkle, other technology advances discussed at the conference included upgrades to the FOIA process; consumer product safety lawyers breathed a sigh of relief on hearing that CPSC will finally send FOIA correspondence electronically and de-duplicate the often voluminous documents responsive to FOIA requests.Window CoveringsNext, Buerkle turned to more traditional product safety initiatives. First, she discussed the updated ANSI window covering standard released last year, which requires stock window coverings to be cordless or have inaccessible cords.Furniture Tipover SafetyFinally, Buerkle addressed furniture tipover safety, which she noted has been one of her top priorities as acting chair. In a surprising announcement, she told the audience that CPSC had that day sent a <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Clothing%20Storage%20Unit_Letter%20to%20Manufacturers_Importers_Distributors_and_Retailers_2.27.19.pdf">letter</a> to furniture manufacturers about tipover safety. The letter stated that any clothing storage units not compliant with ASTM F2057-17 would be regarded as having a defect that could present a substantial product hazard under Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act. Though not explicit, her message was clear: even though CPSC has not gone through the formal rulemaking process, it wants noncompliant furniture products off the market, and companies that fail to report noncompliant units run the risk of swift investigation and penalties for failure to report.Our Product Liability and Counseling attorneys provide guidance on how CPSC’s priorities have shifted over time and how those shifting priorities affect our clients and their products. We will continue to monitor and report on any notable updates from CPSC and how they might impact the consumer product safety landscape.

Fertility Center Litigation

Fitbit

MicroPort

Leading Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Device Company

Lethal Injection Matters – Major Pharmaceutical Company

Pain Pump Matters – Large Pharmaceutical Company

Major Technology Company

Leading Chemical Company

Security Device Company

In re Air Crash Near Peixoto de Azevedo, Brazil

bosman_erin_blog_150x150.png

bosman_erin_common_640x280.jpg

bosman_erin_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

bosman_erin_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

bosman_erin_social_600x600.jpg

Erin Bosman is chair of MoFo’s Class Actions and Mass Torts Practice Group and is a founder and co-head of the Artificial Intelligence Group. Clients value her business strategy, seeking her comprehensive counsel throughout the product life cycle, especially in high-stakes litigation and product recalls.

Erin M. Bosman

Erin Bosman is chair of MoFo’s Class Actions and Mass Torts Practice Group and is a founder and co-head of the Artificial Intelligence Group. Clients value her business strategy, seeking her comprehensive counsel throughout the product life cycle, especially in high-stakes litigation and product recalls.

Erin Bosman

An orthopedic implant company

A children&rsquo;s monthly subscription service product

A fertility company

A major technology company

A smart fitness equipment company

Julie Park provides analytic and strategic counsel for issues in product life cycle, product liability and defective products, consumer class actions, and more.

Julie Park

Julie Park | Product Liability Lawyer

CPSC Acting Chair Buerkle’s Priorities Include IoT and Furniture Safety

At a recent product safety conference, Ann Marie Buerkle, Acting Chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), announced CPSC’s priorities for 20

CPSC Acting Chair Buerkle’s Priorities Include IoT and Furniture Safety

If you thought California’s privacy laws couldn’t get any tougher, think again. The California Legislature has proposed amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act and additional privacy bills that could expand businesses’ privacy and data security obligations and heighten liability for noncompliance.  These proposals confirm that the dust is far from settled in California with respect to the CCPA specifically and privacy regulation generally.Proposed CCPA Amendments.  On February 25, 2019, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-senator-jackson-introduce-legislation-strengthen">announced</a> proposed amendments to the CCPA (<a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB561">SB 561</a>), backed by the California Attorney General, which would dramatically change enforcement of the Act by:<ul><li>Expanding the private right of action to cover any violation of the Act.  The Act limits consumers to suing if their personal information is involved in certain data security incidents.  Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(a).  SB 561 would expand the private right of action to cover any violation of the Act, including violations related to compliance with the Act’s individual rights provisions.  This change increases businesses’ litigation risk and exposure arising out of the Act’s broad (and in many ways ambiguous) requirements.</li><li>Eliminating businesses’ ability to cure violations before AG enforcement can occur.  The Act currently requires the AG to notify businesses of alleged noncompliance and give businesses thirty days to cure alleged violations before bringing an enforcement action.  Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155(b).  SB 561 would eliminate this “right to cure,” allowing the AG to sue without notice.</li><li>Removing the AG’s obligation to provide compliance guidance to businesses.  The amendments would remove businesses’ ability to seek the AG’s guidance on how to comply with the Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155(a), instead providing that the AG may publish general compliance guidance.</li></ul>In backing SB 561, the AG has renewed requests for changes the Legislature declined to adopt in August 2018, when it approved other amendments to the Act (<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1121">SB 1121</a>).  Whether the AG’s proposed amendments will gain traction in the Legislature this session remains to be seen.  The Legislature must also consider SB 561 in connection with other proposed CCPA amendments that would expand exemptions under the Act,<a href="#3998465-v5-CCPA_Amendments_and_CA_Privacy_Bills_Update.docx" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> clarify required mechanisms to submit consumer requests,<a href="#3998465-v5-CCPA_Amendments_and_CA_Privacy_Bills_Update.docx" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> and make nonsubstantive changes.<a href="#3998465-v5-CCPA_Amendments_and_CA_Privacy_Bills_Update.docx" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a>  And, it is likely that there will be additional amendments on the table as well.Additional Privacy Bills.  California Assembly Members have recently introduced other privacy bills that would expand the State’s existing privacy laws, including:<ul><li><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB288">AB 288</a> – Social Media Privacy. This bill would require social media companies to give users the option to have their personally identifiable information permanently removed from company records and excluded from sale when users close their accounts.  AB 288 includes a private right of action permitting consumers to sue for violations.</li><li><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB950">AB 950</a> – Consumer Privacy Protection. This bill would require businesses that collect California residents’ consumer data to disclose the average monetary value to the business of consumers’ data and any use of such data that is not directly related to providing services to consumers.  The bill would also require businesses that sell California residents’ consumer data to disclose the average price the business receives for consumers’ data and the actual price it received for a consumer’s data in response to a verified request by the consumer.</li><li><a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1035">AB 1035</a> – Personal Information: data breaches.  This bill would require businesses to disclose data breaches involving personal information within 72 hours of discovering the breach.</li><li><a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1202">AB 1202</a> – Privacy: data brokers.  This bill would require data brokers to register with, and provide certain information to, the AG and would require the AG to publicize that information on the AG’s website.  The AG could sue data brokers for noncompliance.</li><li><a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1281">AB 1281</a> – Privacy: facial recognition technology: disclosure.  This bill would require a business in California that use facial recognition technology to disclose that usage in a clear and conspicuous physical sign posted at the entrance of locations where such technology is used.  Violations would constitute “unfair competition” under California’s Unfair Competition Law.</li><li><a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1395">AB 1395</a> – Smart Speaker Privacy Act. This bill would prohibit “smart speaker devices,” and manufacturers of such devices, from saving or storing voice data collected by the devices.</li></ul>This legislative activity suggests that privacy regulation is a priority for the Legislature and remains top of mind for consumer advocates.  It will be important for businesses to be mindful of the full privacy landscape as they plan for and focus on CCPA compliance this year.<a href="#3998465-v5-CCPA_Amendments_and_CA_Privacy_Bills_Update.docx" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> See <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1146">AB 1146</a> (exempts vehicle information shared between a new motor vehicle dealer and specified parties in relation to certain vehicle repairs); <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1355">AB 1355</a> (excludes deidentified or aggregate consumer information from the definition of personal information under the Act); and <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1416">AB 1416</a> (confirms the Act does not restrict businesses’ ability to comply with the law, exercise or defend legal claims, protect against fraud, security incidents, or other illegal activity, or investigate, report, or prosecute those responsible for such activity).<a href="#3998465-v5-CCPA_Amendments_and_CA_Privacy_Bills_Update.docx" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> See <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1564">AB 1564</a> (requires businesses to provide consumers with a toll-free number or email address to submit requests and, if the business maintains a website, a website to submit requests).<a href="#3998465-v5-CCPA_Amendments_and_CA_Privacy_Bills_Update.docx" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> See <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1760">AB 1760</a> (nonsubstantive changes to deletion right); <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1758">AB 1758</a> (nonsubstantive changes to provision confirming Act does not require businesses to retain personal information for a single, one‑time transaction if the business does not sell or retain the information); <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB752">SB 752</a> (nonsubstantive changes to financial incentive provision); and <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB753">SB 753</a> (nonsubstantive changes to requirement to provide opt-out link on internet homepage).

patel_purvi_blog_150x150.png

patel_purvi_common_640x280.jpg

patel_purvi_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

patel_purvi_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

patel_purvi_social_600x600.jpg

Purvi G. Patel is the former managing partner of the Los Angeles Office. She represents retail, e-commerce, and other businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy 

Purvi G. Patel

Purvi G. Patel defends retail, e-commerce, and other businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy matters. She has built a robust practice defending household names in complex and class action litigation in federal and state courts across the country, winning motions to dismiss, defeating class certification, and securing summary disposition in several multi-million dollar lawsuits. Purvi is a strategic and practical thinker who is in tune with her clients’ priorities, which leads to successful outcomes both inside and outside the courthouse.

Purvi Patel

gettyimages-681407458-600px_thumbnail.jpg

California Seeks to Strengthen Tough Privacy Laws

Nevada Enacts CCPA-Style Opt-Out Right for Consumers—but Similarities Are Few

gettyimages-681407458-600px_image.jpg

If you thought California’s privacy laws couldn’t get any tougher, think again. The California Legislature has proposed amendments to the California Consumer Pr

California Seeks to Strengthen Tough Privacy Laws

The California Attorney General (AG) held its final public forum on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in Stanford on March 5, 2019. The Stanford forum was well attended, with over 100 people in the audience, and it featured 22 individuals speaking for two and a half hours. The following provides an overview of the Stanford forum and comments made at the forum. You can also read our reports on previous forums.