March 2021

When it comes to the legal side of working with influencers, smart companies focus on ensuring that influencers clearly disclose that they are working with the company. After all, that’s where regulators have focused most of their attention in recent years. But that’s not where a company’s obligations stop – companies also need to take…

Function claimed that it had “over 110,000 5-star product reviews” for its hair care products, the majority of which come from its “shampoo and conditioner” category. A competitor filed an NAD challenge pointing out that the total number of 5-star reviews across all product categories was only 63,831. So how did Function get to 110,000?…

California officials today announced their nominees to be the five inaugural members of the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) Board.  Created by the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), the CPPA will become a powerful, state-level privacy regulator long before its enforcement authority becomes effective in 2023, and today’s appointments move the CPPA one large step…

California’s Office of Administrative Law approved further revisions to the Attorney General’s CCPA regulations on March 15, 2021. The revisions went into effect upon approval. In substance, the revisions are identical to the fourth set of modifications the Attorney General proposed on December 10, 2020, and make the following changes: (1) Notice for Sale of PI Collected Offline: Businesses that sell personal information collected offline must provide an offline notice by means such as providing paper copies or posting signs in a store, or giving an oral notice if collecting personal information over the phone. (2) Opt-Out Icon: The revised regulations provide that businesses may use an opt-out icon in addition to, but not in lieu of, notice of a right to opt out or a “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” link. (3) Do Not Sell Requests: A “Do Not Sell” request must “be easy for consumers to execute and shall require minimal steps to allow the consumer to opt-out.” The change prohibits businesses from using any method that is designed to or would have the effect of preventing a consumer from opting out. The revised regulation offers examples of prohibited opt-out practices, which include requiring a consumer to: (A) complete more steps to opt out than to re-opt in after a consumer had previously opted out; (B) provide personal information that is not necessary to implement the opt-out request; and (C) read through a list of reasons why he or she shouldn’t opt out before confirming the request. (4) Consumer Requests from Authorized Agents: A business may now require an authorized agent who submits a request to know or delete to provide proof that the consumer gave the agent signed permission to submit a request. The regulations also preserve the options business previously had of requiring the consumer to verify their identity directly to the business or directly confirming that they provided the authorized agent permission to submit the request. (5) Children’s Information: The addition of the word “or” in section 999.332 requires businesses that sell personal information of children under the age of 13 “and/or” between the ages of 13 and 15 to describe in their privacy policies how to make an opt-in to sale requests. We will continue to monitor closely further developments in CCPA regulations.California’s Office of Administrative Law approved further revisions to the Attorney General’s CCPA regulations on March 15, 2021.  The revisions went into effect upon approval.  In substance, the revisions are identical to the fourth set of modifications the Attorney General proposed on December 10, 2020, and make the following changes:

(1) Notice for Sale of…

As part of its routine monitoring program, NAD asked ACT to provide substantiation for statements the company made online about its standardized college entrance test. NAD was concerned about whether ACT sufficiently disclosed the likelihood of cancellations due to COVID-19 and statements about test center availability. The decision is interesting because it sheds light on…

At a hearing of the Antitrust Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Chair Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) emphasized the need for broad antitrust reform. While she rallied bipartisan support to supplement antitrust budgets and encountered little opposition for helping news outlets bargain with social media, prospects for her sweeping S. 225, the Competition and Antitrust …

In a significant but unsurprising move, the CFPB announced today that it was rescinding a policy statement issued in January 2020 that sought to tether the Bureau’s “abusive” authority to certain limiting principles.  The move signals that the Bureau is likely to interpret its authority to prevent “abusive acts and practices” under the Dodd-Frank Act…

Earlier this week, Judge Cynthia Bashant of the Southern District of California granted a plaintiff’s second bite at the apple (or rather biscuit) to certify a class of purchasers of belVita breakfast biscuits in McMorrow v. Mondelez International, Inc.  The plaintiff alleged that Mondelez falsely labeled its belVita biscuits as providing “NUTRITIOUS SUSTAINED ENERGY;”  “NUTRITIOUS…

Welcome to our monthly digest of litigation and regulatory highlights impacting the food and beverage industry.  February saw another win for industry on the vanilla front, a preemption win in California state court, and FDA continuing with COVID-19-related warning letters and foreign supplier verification enforcement.  Let’s take a look….

Litigation

Industry scored another win on…