CPSC Removes Third-Party Testing Requirements for Children’s Products with Certain Plastics
Welcome to Class Dismissed
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.
- In a unanimous vote, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) eliminated third-party testing for compliance with CPSC’s phthalates prohibitions for seven plastics. The Commission decided that these plastics with specified additives do not contain concentrations above 0.1% of the phthalates prohibited in children’s... ›
Bristol-Myers Squibb: The Aftermath
By: Erin M. Bosman and Julie Y. Park
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... ›- - CPSC
Trump Nominates Buerkle as Permanent CPSC Chair
By: Erin M. Bosman and Julie Y. Park
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... › 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... ›Shift In CPSC Leadership Means More Changes To Come
By: Erin M. Bosman and Julie Y. Park
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... ›A Twist on Campbell-Ewald: Seventh Circuit Rejects Effort to Moot Class Action Claims Under F.R.C.P. 67
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez , 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant’s unaccepted offer of complete relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 did not moot a class plaintiff’s claim or require dismissal of the... ›FDA’s Denial of Citizen’s Petition “Clear” Enough for Preemption of Failure-to-Warn Claims
By: Erin M. Bosman and Julie Y. Park
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.... ›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... ›UPDATE: The Revival of ECJ Lawsuits*
*This is an update to a previous post on the Class Dismissed blog, seen here. On June 8, 2017, Judge Carney dismissed Plaintiff’s class action Complaint because she failed to provide specifics about her own Sports Beans purchase. The court held that the Complaint... ›- - Appellate & Supreme Court, Drug & Medical Device, Product Liability, Consumer Products, Class Action
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.... ›