Over the course of about a week, the CPSC, an agency that rarely litigates, flexed its litigation muscles not once, but twice,  recently filing complaints against Amazon and Thyssenkrupp Access Corp., seeking to force both companies to conduct recalls. Both are administrative complaints.

Fulfilled by Amazon

The CPSC voted 3-1 to file its complaint against

Last week, the Seventh Circuit reminded advertisers of the narrowing availability of insurance coverage for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims.  In Mesa Laboratories v. Federal Insurance Co., the court rejected a fax marketer’s bid to make its insurer pay for its defense and settlement of an underlying unsolicited fax lawsuit.  This decision underscores the insurance industry’s recent trend of limiting TCPA coverage under general policy forms and requiring policyholders to seek out and purchase specific coverage for those types of claims.

At one time, insurance policies did not say whether they provided coverage for claims brought under the TCPA.  When the statute was passed in 1991, many policyholders were able to secure coverage for TCPA claims under the “personal and advertising injury” portions of their general liability insurance policies, which typically cover any “oral or written publication that violates a person’s right to privacy.”  With the explosion of TCPA lawsuits in recent years, however, insurers have looked to reduce their own exposure by adding exclusions to their policies that expressly bar coverage for TCPA claims.  At the same time, many carriers have started offering affirmative coverage for TCPA liability.  Policyholders usually must pay extra for this, however, and the coverage often comes with reduced sublimits of liability or other restrictions on coverage.

But even when a policy has an express TCPA exclusion, an insurer still might have to defend its insured in a lawsuit that asserts TCPA claims because of a general principle of insurance law recognized by courts around the country: if a lawsuit asserts multiple claims against an insured, and at least one of those claims is covered by the policy, the insurer must defend the entire lawsuit – even if the other claims are expressly excluded from coverage.  Thus, an insurer whose policy excludes TCPA claims might have to defend a TCPA lawsuit if the plaintiff also includes a false advertising or defamation claim, both of which are expressly covered.
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Reminds Insurance Policyholders to Shop Carefully for TCPA Coverage

Over the last few months, a wave of consumers have filed putative class action complaints against a long list of consumer-facing website owners/operators and their software providers alleging invasion of privacy rights under statutes focused on wiretapping and eavesdropping.

Our team has represented both website and software defendants in these cases.  However, this post is not intended to reflect on any specific claim, website, or software.  Rather, our goal is to provide an introduction to the general nature of the consumer claims and current landscape of these litigations.

This post summarizes (1) the “session replay” technology at issue in these claims; (2) arguments presented by the Complaints; (3) an overview of common defenses; and (4) where things stand.  With that context, we then provide our list of practical considerations for the use of session replay software.      

What is “Session Replay” Software? 

A significant branch of the Software-as-a-Service (Saas) industry has arisen to support website owners/operators in effectively maintaining and leveraging their consumer-facing websites.  These software products are generally scripts placed in the JavaScript of a given website to capture specific information related to a consumer’s interactions with a given page.  The software can capture consumer’s keystrokes and mouse movements to provide information on everything from broken links or error messages to support IT teams, create heat maps showing website usage, and/or capture consumer information for validating consent to be contacted or agreement to receive products and services.

Despite how these products are often described, the software does not actually record the consumer’s session in the way that a security camera in a brick-and-mortar store would capture a consumer’s movements. Rather it captures the consumer’s interactions with the website at regular intervals and allows those movements and data points to be laid over an existing image of the website so that owners/operators can review a recreation (or dramatization) of an individual consumer’s experience.          
Continue Reading Privacy Litigation Trend: The Latest on Session Replay Lawsuits, and Practical Considerations for Risk Mitigation

Key Developments in CCPA Litigation for Q1 2021As we move deeper into the second year of CCPA litigation, the substantive issues continue to develop and we remain focused on the patterns and implications of recent filings and rulings.  In this post, we highlight notable developments in three cases that occurred in the first quarter of 2021.  These cases raise significant issues

Welcome to our selected regulatory and litigation highlights impacting the food and beverage industry in March 2021.  The food court saw its own brand of March Madness with disputes over food delivery fees kicking off this month’s update.

Litigation Developments

Hidden Delivery Fees

A number of suits were filed in March regarding undisclosed delivery fees. 

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

Welcome to our monthly roundup of regulatory and litigation highlights impacting the dietary supplement and personal care products industries.  Sit back, relax, and enjoy the read.  February was a short month, with a lot going on.

NAD

Health claim substantiation was front and center before NAD in a monitoring case involving Pendulum Therapeutics and a “medical probiotic” product featuring claims such as “The only medical probiotic clinically shown to lower A1C & blood glucose spikes for the dietary management of T2D*” (*Consult your physician as part of your total diabetes management plan.  Results may vary from person to person.”)

The advertiser submitted a 12-week multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (the “Perraudeau Study”) to assess Pendulum Glucose Control’s safety and effectiveness in improving glycemic control in Type 2 diabetics and, ultimately, their dietary management of the disease – specifically, the role of certain probiotic strains found in prior research to be associated with the promotion of a healthy gut microbiome through the production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs).

The advertiser also provided clinical studies and research articles demonstrating the roles of A1C, fasting glucose and postprandial glucose levels in managing Type 2 diabetes. The advertiser also referred to the FDA’s Guidance document (Diabetes Mellitus: Developing Drugs and Therapeutic Biologics for Treatment and Prevention) to demonstrate what level of reduction in HbA1c was clinically meaningful.

While NAD expressed some concerns about the evidence, ultimately, NAD determined that the Perraudeau Study was a good fit for the challenged claim “The only medical probiotic clinically shown to lower A1C & blood glucose spikes for the dietary management of T2D*” (*Consult your physician as part of your total diabetes management plan. Results may vary from person to person.”) but recommended the following modifications: (1) limiting the claim to individuals who are taking metformin; (2) modifying the claim to clarify that the product can be used as part of the dietary management of type 2 diabetes; and (3) removing the references to percent reductions in blood glucose spikes in the absence of evidence in the record demonstrating that the reductions were clinically relevant.

This decision is a helpful discussion of the competent and reliable scientific evidence standard.  Anyone seeking to understand health claims substantiation better should check it out.
Continue Reading Dietary Supplement and Personal Care Products Regulatory Highlights – February 2021

Welcome to our monthly digest of litigation and regulatory highlights impacting the food and beverage industry.  As it has been for many months, the story was mostly about what’s going on in the food court.  Let’s take a look….

Litigation

Vanilla, vanilla, and more vanilla….The plaintiff’s bar remains skeptical of any product labeled as vanilla. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a West Virginia federal district court’s holding that a plaintiff’s common law tort claim was preempted by the 1976 Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Under the MDA, certain medical devices, known as Class III devices, are required to receive premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).  The MDA also allows the FDA to condition a grant of premarket approval on a requirement that a device meet certain performance standards. The establishment of a performance standard is a formal process that requires publication in the Federal Register and providing interested parties with an opportunity to comment.  The MDA expressly preempts state medical device regulations that are “different from, or in addition to, any [federal] requirement.”


Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Clarifies Scope of Federal Preemption for Requirements Governing Medical Devices