Last November, the FTC sought public comment on a draft strategic plan for 2022-2026. As we blogged here and discussed in a comment submitted to the FTC (one of only 21 submitted), a key change from prior strategic plans was deletion of the phrase “without unduly burdening legitimate business activity” from the FTC’s Mission Statement
Russia Sanctions Updates
Given the rapidly evolving situation in Ukraine, we thought it would be helpful to offer our AdLaw Access readers a link to the ongoing guidance being published by our Export and Sanctions Team at Kelley Drye. For more information on the situation and how it may impact your business, please contact our Export and Sanctions…
Is It Time to Rethink Establishment Claims?
The decision in Kwan v. Sanmedica International, 854 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2017) in April, has occasioned a lot of discussion about the apparent demise of the establishment claim “standard” in California. What the Kwan decision should have done, but did not, is provoke some hard thinking about what this “standard” is and how we use it. From the Kwan decision, it is apparent that the Ninth Circuit does not understand where the establishment claim principle came from and what it means. But its error is understandable, because attorneys and judges have been careless with the principle and arguably have made much more of it than it should be.
Kwan has been accepted as standing for two propositions. The first, which should be non-controversial and unsurprising, is that in private suits brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), a plaintiff must allege and ultimately prove that the offending advertising claim is false, not merely unsubstantiated. There has been no serious dispute about this since the California Court of Appeal (Second District) decision in National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 107 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 207 (2003). What made Kwan news was that the court also rejected plaintiff’s allegations that defendant’s dietary supplements were “clinically tested to boost [human growth hormone] by a mean of 682%,” is provably false, and in so doing refused to “incorporate Lanham Act provisions into California’s unfair competition and consumer protection law by distinguishing between ‘establishment’ and ‘non-establishment’ claims.” 854 F.3d at 1097. …
Continue Reading Is It Time to Rethink Establishment Claims?
Genetically Modified – Naturally!
On October 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a consumer class action under Massachusetts law, contending that Wesson vegetable oil is falsely labeled “100% natural” because it allegedly is extracted from genetically modified corn, soybean and rapeseed. Lee v. Conagra Brands., Inc., 1:17-cv-11042 (D. Mass Oct. 25, 2017). This…
Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing, but It’s Not an Ingredient
The Food and Drug Administration has made the news lately for disapproving a Massachusetts bakery’s inclusion of “love” among the listed ingredients in its granola products. Nashoba Brook Bakery produces breads and granolas that are sold in independent markets and fine-food stores in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. As the FDA primly put it, “‘Love’ is…
Three Reasons “Natural” Class Actions Are Here to Stay
In a review of new class action cases filed against in 2017, we counted at least 11 actions in the food industry alone alleging that a product was not “natural” or “all-natural” as claimed in its advertising or labeling. “Natural” is, by a healthy margin, the most contested single word in food and personal care products class action litigation. Why do class action cases around “natural” continue unabated?
- “Natural” Doesn’t Mean Much …
There is no generic, official definition of “natural.” In November 2015, after being prodded by almost every stakeholder, the FDA put out a request for information and comments regarding the use of “natural” in foods. Since then, the FDA has done nothing. It hasn’t even closed the web page for submitting comments, which were supposed to end in May 2016 – you can still leave a comment if you want to. This doesn’t mean we have no idea what the FDA thinks “natural” means. There is enough guidance on narrower definitions, such as the FDA’s definition of “natural flavor” and its opposite, “artificial flavor,” and the USDA’s general definition of “natural,” that we can guess with some confidence what the FDA’s definition of “natural” would look like if it were issued tomorrow. But a guess doesn’t carry much authority, and isn’t much use in stopping litigation.
- … but Some Consumers Think It Means a Lot …
In advertising law, however, neither the advertiser nor even the government is the final arbiter of what an advertising claim means. It is the consumer audience that gets to interpret advertising claims, and regardless of what was intended, the advertiser is responsible for any reasonable interpretation of its advertising. In private cases, the proxy that is used for a “reasonable consumer” is a significant proportion of consumers who report receiving a particular meaning in a competent consumer perception survey, that proportion sometimes being as low as 15%. The implicit assumption is that at least 85% of consumers are reasonable, so that any slice of 15% of consumers must include some reasonable ones. It may seem like a debatable premise these days, but it’s one we have to live with.
Continue Reading Three Reasons “Natural” Class Actions Are Here to Stay
What Does Tweeeeeting Mean for Advertisers?
This week, the news broke that tweets are likely getting longer. Twitter plans to extend the maximum length of a tweet from 140 to 280 characters, and has already rolled this feature out to selected users. What are the implications for advertisers, especially those struggling to cope with the need to disclose material connections to …
Does the NAD’s Capillus Decision Baldly Contradict the FDA?
On September 12, the NAD released its decision in its review of the Capillus82 hair growth device (Case #6107). This case is unusual in that it addressed a challenge to a prescription-only medical device, and related closely to the FDA’s clearance of that product to be marketed. The NAD took pains to emphasize that its decision did not contradict the device’s FDA-cleared indication for use, but did it really?
First, a little background on how the FDA treats medical devices of this kind. Low-to-moderate-risk medical devices may be marketed without preapproval through what is known as the 510(k) clearance process. Instead of being evaluated and approved by the FDA for safety and efficacy, the device can be “cleared” if it is “substantially equivalent” to a device that already is legally marketed. The existing “predicate device” may itself have undergone full approval, or it too may be a 510(k) cleared device pointing to a yet earlier predicate device. The device maker’s 510(k) submission must convince the FDA that the new device is technologically equivalent to the predicate device or is otherwise substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness. The intended use must be the same as that of the predicate device. The process has been analogized to a generic drug approval predicated on chemical equivalence to an existing branded drug.
The Capillus82 is a hat with 82 laser diodes lining the inside. Its intended use is to treat androgentic alopecia (i.e., slow hair loss) and promote hair regrowth in men and women having certain kinds of pattern baldness. It received FDA 510(k) clearance in January 2017, with the predicate devices being the Hairmax Lasercomb and the iGrow II – no, I am not making these up – which used different form factors to apply laser light to the head, something that apparently promotes hair growth. Clearance was applied for and granted on the basis that the Capillus82’s technology was the same as those of the Lasercomb, iGrow and other laser hair growth treatments, with minor differences that should have no impact on safety or efficacy.
Continue Reading Does the NAD’s Capillus Decision Baldly Contradict the FDA?
What Will Your Social Media Influencer Letter from the FTC Look Like?
Missing Ingredient Claims Lead Food Advertising Class Actions So Far in 2017
For the first 28 weeks of 2017, the most frequently alleged claims in new food and beverage false-advertising class actions have related to featured product ingredients that allegedly are absent, or present only in small quantities, in the food at issue.
We reviewed news reports and other mentions of newly-filed food advertising class actions for…