The California Food, Drug, and Medical Device Task Force announced a settlement this week with Goop, the lifestyle brand founded by Gwyneth Paltrow, which we’ve written about here and here. The complaint alleges that Goop made false and misleading representations regarding the effects or attributes of three products—the Jade Egg, Rose Quartz Egg, and
All That Glitters Is Not Gold: FTC Updates Jewelry Guides
The FTC recently finalized updates to its Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries, which provide the FTC’s interpretation of the jewelry marketing rules found in 16 C.F.R. §23. The FTC hosted a roundtable in 2013, which we wrote about here, and considered stakeholder comments prior to finalizing the new Guides. The updated Guides address a number of topics, including the surface application of precious metals, below-threshold previous metal alloys, gemstone products, and “cultured” diamonds.
What’s Changed
Some highlights of the changes include advising that jewelry marketers may:
- Qualify if a coated product only has a service layer of a precious metal;
- Advertise a product’s precious metal coating to assure reasonable durability;
- Disclose the purity of coatings made with precious metal alloys;
- Qualify a product’s gold karat fineness or a parts per thousand (PPT) designation for silver products that have less than 925 PPT;
- Use alternative words and phrases for man-made stones (where it shares the same properties as the named stone) if they clearly and conspicuously convey that the product is not a mined stone.
Seller Beware When Using Third-Party Services to Manage Returns
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article discussing a growing practice among retailers who use third-party services to identify fraudulent returns. These services will inform retailers when they think a return is fraudulent, and some retailers will reject returns based on this information, notwithstanding what is in their return policies. The article presents an
Michaels Stores Inc. Agrees to Pay $1.5 Million CPSC Civil Penalty
Last week, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that Michaels Stores Inc. has agreed to pay $1.5 million in civil penalties to settle allegations that Michaels failed to file a timely report about a safety hazard associated with a large glass vase that Michaels sold. In 2015, DOJ filed a complaint on behalf of the
TINA Has Eyes on Goop
The consumer advocacy non-profit Truth in Advertising, Inc. (TINA.org) has set its sights on Goop, the lifestyle brand launched by Gwyneth Paltrow. In a complaint filed earlier this week with the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz County California district attorneys, both members of the California Food and Drug and medical Device Task Force, TINA alleges they found over 50 instances where claims were made that products Goop produces or promotes “can treat, cure, prevent, alleviate the symptoms of, or reduce the risk of developing a number of ailments.” TINA has requested that the California district attorneys investigate Goop’s marketing practices.
This is not the first time Goop has been forced to defend claims that it promotes. Last summer, the National Advertising Division took issue with claims related to using “dust” dietary supplements, such as Action Dust and Brain Dust, both sold by Moon Juice. The NAD closed the case after Goop agreed to permanently discontinue the dust claims.
Continue Reading
Comparison Pricing Victory for Ross Stores in California
On August 2, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a putative class action lawsuit against Ross Stores that accused the discount retailer of misleading promotional pricing practices. The lawsuit stemmed from February and May 2015 purchases by the two lead plaintiffs of items bearing price tags with a selling
V-I-C-T-O-R-Y for the Fashion Industry: SCOTUS Establishes Uniform Test for Protection of Artistic Works Applied to Apparel
The overall design (such as the shape and cut) of a garment, bag or shoe is not protectable under current U.S. Copyright law because such items are considered “useful articles.” However, Section 101 of the Copyright Act provides protection for the “pictorial, graphic or sculptural features [of a useful article] that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the [useful] article.”[1]
In the fashion world, this provision of the Copyright Act allows companies to protect original pictorial, graphic or sculptural features that are applied to garments, bags and other accessories. Examples include: fabric designs like a floral pattern; graphic art like an artistic rendition of a snake or tiger; and sculptural 3-D hardware adornments like belt buckles or buttons. Copyright protection only covers the artwork itself, not the overall configuration of the garment or other product to which it is applied.[2]
For decades, courts and commentators have struggled to fashion a suitable test to determine when a pictorial, graphic or sculptural feature of a useful article (such as a garment) is protectable under § 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act. On March 22, 2017, in a 6-2 decision written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court provided long-awaited clarification. Much to the relief of the fashion industry, the Court adopted a test that preserves copyright protection for applied art to apparel and fashion accessories.
Oregon Attorney General Announces $545,000 Settlement with Retailer
The Oregon AG recently announced a $545,000 settlement with the Vitamin Shoppe over allegations that the store violated Oregon state law by selling dietary supplements containing ingredients that FDA has deemed unsafe or unlawful. The new settlement agreement places significant burdens on the Vitamin Shoppe to monitor developments on ingredient status. The burdens are the
More Regulators Focus on Price Comparisons
Yesterday, the Virginia Attorney General announced that it reached a settlement with Hobby Lobby over the retailer’s price comparisons. According to the press release, Hobby Lobby advertised discounts compared to “other sellers,” but failed to disclose the basis of comparison, thus making it difficult for consumers to determine whether they were getting a good deal.
Ad Law News and Views Newsletter
Did you know Kelley Drye’s Advertising Law practice produces a newsletter, Ad Law News and Views, every two weeks to help you stay current on ad law and privacy matters? Click here to access our Publication Sign Up and select Advertising and Marketing to subscribe. Find contents from the latest issue below:
Click here to