Photo of Christie Grymes Thompson

Christie Grymes Thompson

Subscribe to Christie Grymes Thompson's Posts

Email
(202) 342-8633
Bio

Follow: Read more about Christie Grymes Thompson

Last Friday, the CPSC voted to sue Britax Child Safety, Inc. to force the company to recall various models of single and double B.O.B. jogging strollers. The one-count administrative complaint alleges that the strollers present a substantial product hazard under Section 15(a)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act because they contain a product defect that presents a substantial risk of injury to the public.

The CPSC claims that the three-wheel strollers’ quick release mechanism can fail to secure the front wheel to the fork, allowing that front wheel to detach during use. Furthermore, due to the design of the stroller, consumers are allegedly likely to believe that the wheel is secured when it is not. The CPSC states that it has received over 200 reports of incidents since January 2012 – 97 of which resulted in injuries, some severe, to 50 children and 47 adults. In a press release on the B.O.B. website, Britax counters that the strollers are safe when used as instructed and do not contain a defect. The company points out that the QR mechanism is “widely-used” in bicycles and strollers, and front wheel detachments only occur when wheels are installed improperly – and contrary to available written and video instructions.

The complaint requests a finding that the strollers present a “substantial product hazard” under the CPSA and an order Britax that implement a corrective action plan that includes initiating a stop-sale, notifying consumers and the public of the recall, and providing a remedy. The Commissioners voted to approve the complaint along party lines, with Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle opposing the filing. As we have previously reported, the Commission’s priorities could shift if she and Republican nominee Dana Baiocco are confirmed.

Under the CPSA, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers have an obligation to report to the CPSC as soon as they obtain information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a consumer product contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard, or creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. The CPSC takes this reporting obligation very seriously, and staff do not hesitate to reach out to companies after receiving a number of consumer complaints related to a single consumer product (or set of products).

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 Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) against Michaels, an arts and crafts retailer, with charges that the company knew of multiple consumer injuries for over a year before reporting to the CPSC. Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act requires manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers to report immediately, which is defined as “within 24 hours of obtaining reportable information,” if a product has the potential to create a substantial hazard due to a defect, presents an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to adhere to a consumer product safety rule or standard. If a company is unsure whether or not a report is required, it may investigate for up to ten working days.

Michaels sold about 200,000 vases, and the CPSC and DOJ alleged that the products could shatter in consumers’ hands because they were too thin to withstand the pressure of normal handling. Injuries reportedly associated with the breaking glass included permanent nerve damage and lacerations requiring stitches. Michaels, as the complaint asserts, “possessed information that the vases had injured one consumer in 2007 and at least four customers in the first half of 2009,” but did not report to the CPSC until February 2010.

In an unusual move for DOJ and CPSC, the original complaint alleged that, once Michaels notified the CPSC, it falsely conveyed how the glass vases were acquired, so DOJ also brought a material representation count. Specifically, the report Michaels submitted to CPSC stated that the vases were purchased from a vendor, but records identified Michaels as the importer. In April 2017, dropped the material misrepresentation claim to focus on the civil penalties and injunctive relief.

In addition to paying the civil penalty, consistent with previous civil penalties, Michaels must implement a compliance program to ensure timely and accurate reporting to the CPSC in the future.

To avoid similar consequences, companies should remember the very low bar for what triggers a Section 15(b) Report to the CPSC, even for products like glass vases that have inherent properties that could cause an injury.

Last week, CPSC Commissioner Joseph Mohorovic, one of the two Republicans on the five-person Commission, announced that he would be ending his term as Commissioner two years early to join the Federal Regulatory and Compliance practice at the law firm Dentons.  His last day at the Commission was October 20.  Mr. Mohorovic became a Commissioner in July 2014 and had commuted from Chicago during his tenure.  He cited a desire to spend more time with his family as the basis for his resignation.

In the short term, the Commission will have a 3-1 Democrat majority, but Dana Baiocco (R) has been nominated to fill the seat of Commissioner Marietta Robinson (D) as her term ends this month.  Once that nomination is confirmed, the Commissions would have two Republicans (Ms. Baoicco and Acting Chair Ann Marie Buerkle), two Democrats (Commissioners Robert Adler and Elliot Kaye), and one open slot.

After months of speculation among the consumer protection and antitrust bars, Trump announced today his intention to nominate former Director of the Bureau of Competition and current Paul Weiss partner Joseph Simons as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.  Trump also announced his plan to nominate Rohit Chopra, currently a senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America and previously Assistant Director at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), to one of two vacant commissioner seats.  News outlets also are reporting that Trump will soon nominate Noah Phillips, chief counsel for Senator John Cornyn (R.-Tex.), to an additional commissioner seat.

Assuming Simons is confirmed and appointed as Chair, Acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen would return to her position as Commissioner.  Her term is set to expire in September 2018.  Commissioner Terrell McSweeny also continues to serve on the Commission, although her term expired in September, and as reported by MLex.com, Simons’ confirmation would place him in the slot she currently occupies.  More information on each of the three nominations follows.

Joseph Simons.  Currently a partner and co-chair of the Antitrust Group at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Simons has worked in private practice for the majority of his career and is likely to be welcomed by industry as a reasoned and qualified choice.  He also has experience in public service, having served at the FTC as Director of the Bureau of Competition from June 2001 to August 2003.  He also served as the Associate Director for Mergers and the Assistant Director for Evaluation at the FTC in the late 1980s.  Simons has worked on a number of high profile antitrust cases, including representing MasterCard Inc. in antitrust class actions over merchant fees, and representing a consortium including Microsoft, Ericsson, RIM and Sony in its $4.5 billion acquisition of the patent portfolio of Nortel Networks.

As a long-time antitrust practitioner with experience in private and public practice, Simons is likely to bring a thorough and deliberative approach to the Commission.  While Simons is unlikely to support enforcement that is not justified by a rigorous economic analysis of costs and benefits, he’s also unlikely to shy away from challenging deals and conduct that fail the economic test.  In short, economic effects and rule of reason will guide policy.  Simons notably has significant high tech and intellectual property experience, as well as merger experience, where economics predominates decision making.

On the consumer protection side, Simons’ experience will likely reinforce the policies announced by Acting Chairman Ohlhausen to put economic injury at the center of case selection.  The emphasis on fraud will likely continue, while actions and remedies that would regulate ordinary business practices will face the test of economic analysis.  If he’s confirmed as expected, Simons would serve a seven-year term that began on September 26, 2017.

Rohit Chopra.  While Simons’ experience comes primarily from the competition side, Chopra has concentrated on consumer protection issues.  Chopra is currently a senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America where he focuses on consumer finance issues, particularly with regard to their impact on younger Americans.  Chopra was previously the Assistant Director of the CFPB where he led enforcement actions against student loan borrowers and helped establish a new student loan complaint system at the agency.  Chopra’s background and experience with consumer finance give him an expertise rare among commissioners and could translate into significant influence on hot topics such as credit reporting, debt collection, and big data.  He also may engage in advertising and privacy initiatives affecting children and younger Americans, given his prior interest in this area.

Chopra’s approach to competition could be influenced by longtime ally, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D.-Mass.), who has distinguished herself as a proponent of aggressive enforcement and new legislation.  Unlike most prior FTC commissioners, Chopra is not an attorney.  His background is in business and includes an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.  Trump indicated that Chopra would be appointed to the remainder of a seven-year term that would expire on September 25, 2019.

Noah Phillips.  While yet to be announced by the Trump Administration, media outlets are reporting that Phillips will be named to fill another vacancy at the Commission.  Phillips is presently Chief Counsel to Senator Cornyn.  Phillips previously worked as an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and Steptoe & Johnson LLP, before leaving the private sector to serve as counsel to Cornyn.

Phillips would come to the Commission with significant law firm experience, as well as an understanding of the Hill.   Among others, Cornyn serves on the Senate Committee on Finance, which includes subcommittees on international trade and energy.  We would expect, therefore, to see Phillips take an active interest in international issues, as well as competition in the energy sector.

***

We will continue to monitor the appointment and confirmation process and post updates here.

Last Friday, ten consumer and privacy advocacy groups, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Center for Digital Democracy, and Consumer Watchdog, sent a letter to Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle, requesting that the CPSC recall the Google Home Mini smart speaker. The speaker was designed to respond to the voice commands, “OK, Google” and “Hey, Google,” as well as to a consumer pressing a small button on the top of the unit. Last week, the blog Android Police reported a glitch that caused the device to detect a touch even when a consumer was not pressing the button and remain “always on.” In response, Google issued a software update and completely disabled the button functionality.

The groups claim that this glitch resulted in Google intercepting and recording private conversations without consumers’ knowledge or consent, and that the device therefore poses a risk to consumer safety. Although they acknowledge that “the privacy concerns associated with Internet-connected devices appear different from traditional public safety concerns,” the groups call on the CPSC and its “broad mandate” to respond to such concerns, particularly in light of the “failure” of the FTC to investigate complaints involving Internet-connected devices.

Under the Consumer Product Safety Act, manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers have an obligation to immediately report to the CPSC when they obtain information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a consumer product contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard, or creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. While the groups note that the CPSC recently announced a recall of Internet-connected devices, the cited recall involved a product that posed an actual injury to consumers. CPSC action based on a non-physical injury, such as invasion of privacy, would be breaking new ground, but manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of IoT and other connected products should continue to watch for new developments and consider the potential safety issues associated with the products.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation approved Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle’s nomination to become CPSC Chairman last Thursday in a 14-13 vote along party lines. She is expected to be confirmed by the full Senate, and would then be able to move forward with staff appointments. Buerkle has served as Acting Chairman since February, and was nominated to become Chairman in July. For more information about Acting Chairman Buerkle’s priorities at the CPSC, please view our previous blog posts here and here.

Associate Lauren Myers contributed to this post. She is practicing under the supervision of principals of the firm who are members of the D.C. Bar.

Yesterday, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Dana Baiocco as CPSC Commissioner. If confirmed, Ms. Baiocco would replace Commissioner Marietta Robinson when her term expires on October 27, and would serve a seven-year term. Ms. Baiocco would join Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle and Commissioner Joseph Mohorovic, and give the five-member Commission a republican majority once again. She has already received the support of Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee.

Currently, Ms. Baiocco is a partner at Jones Day in Boston, and her practice focuses on products liability and tort litigation, as well as regulatory and reporting obligations enforced by the CPSC, for a number of high-profile clients. Ms. Baiocco attended Duquesne University School of Law, and clerked for The Honorable Gustave Diamond of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania prior to joining Jones Day’s Pittsburgh office as an associate. She became partner in 2007, and helped found the firm’s Boston office in 2011.

The Senate Commerce Committee also announced yesterday that, on September 27, they will hold a nomination hearing for Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle to become CPSC Chairman. She has served as Acting Chairman since February, and was nominated to become Chairman in July. Acting Chairman Buerkle has emphasized her desire to collaborate with stakeholders, to take a “balanced and reasonable approach” to regulation when data justifies rulemaking, and to use information campaigns to educate consumers and industry.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. said Friday that the court would pause the trial to consider whether the FTC presented sufficient evidence to support its allegations that DirecTV misled consumers by failing to adequately disclose the terms of its two-year subscription and introductory pricing offer.  The judge instructed attorneys for DirecTV to file their partial judgment motion and a brief on findings of fact within two weeks.  The FTC will then have two weeks to respond to the motion and submit its own findings of fact.

As we previously discussed here and here, the FTC is seeking almost $4 billion in equitable relief based on allegations that DirecTV misled consumers by failing to disclose that it would raise its monthly subscription price after a consumer subscribed for three months, and then again after a year.  The case involves alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA).  Over the first ten days of trial, testimony has addressed an array of issues from the proportion of consumers who may have been misled, to the proper calculation of damages assuming they were misled.

Most recently, last Friday, attorneys for DirecTV questioned the FTC’s expert, University of San Francisco economics professor Daniel Rascher, on the basis for calculating that DirecTV should pay almost $4 billion in equitable relief.  DirecTV’s attorneys argued that the figure fails to account for what proportion of consumers were actually misled.  Rascher countered that his role was not to analyze and interpret the ads but to calculate unjust gains based on DirecTV’s customer billing data.  After Rascher’s testimony, the FTC rested its case and Judge Gilliam addressed DirecTV’s partial judgment bid by pausing the trial and giving DirecTV two weeks to brief the issues.

We’ll continue to monitor and post updates related to the case here.

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 price and an instruction to “Compare At” the higher, reference price. Ross has since changed the reference price signal from “Compare At” to “Comparable Value.”

The Second Amended Complaint, filed in March 2016, contained the following allegations:

  • The use of “Compare At” is deceptive, as the higher, reference price is not a price at which substantial sales of the item were made in California.
  • The higher, reference price is the price of similar, non-identical merchandise – a material fact that Ross fails to adequately disclose.
  • A reasonable consumer would expect the reference price to refer to the price of an identical item.
  •  The retailer’s explanation of its comparison pricing is “buried” on the website and out of view in stores. Specifically, the explanation states that the comparison pricing “represents a recent documented selling price of the same or similar product in full-price department stores or specialty stores[, and w]here identical products are not available [Ross] may compare to similar products and styles.”

According to the plaintiffs, these practices violate California law, which promotional pricing statutes (1) prohibit retailers from making a false or misleading statement of fact concerning the reason for a price reduction, and (2) require that an advertised reference price have been the prevailing market price for the item within the immediately preceding three months. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(13); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17501.

In May, Ross and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and motion for class certification, respectively. With respect to the new, “Comparable Value” signal, the Court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge these tags because they failed to present evidence that they actually relied on the phrase when making their purchases, or that they suffered any economic injury as a result of Ross’s use of the phrase. As a result, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment with respect to Ross’s use of “Comparable Value.”

With respect to the “Compare At” signal, the Court found that the phrase is not “obviously false or misleading on its face,” and the plaintiffs had not presented evidence, other than their own declarations and price tags, in support of their argument that the reasonable consumer would expect the reference price to refer to the price of an identical item. Regardless, the Court concluded, the plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate economic harm, and therefore lacked standing to pursue their claims. Importantly, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on the Ninth Circuit decision in Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp., noting that, “the standard of proof on a motion for summary judgment is higher” and demands proof that the items purchased were not worth as much as Ross claims, rather than vague averments of injury.

More than a month after the retirement of former NAD Director Andrea Levine, the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council (“ASRC”) has announced NAD’s new Director: Laura Brett. Laura Brett, who has served as NAD’s Assistant Director since 2015, joined NAD in April of 2012. During her five years at NAD, Laura has authored several seminal decisions including NAD’s highly publicized 2015 DirecTV decision. She has also authored several monitoring decisions that deal with the intersection between social media and advertising law. (See, for example, NAD’s Kardashian and eSalon decisions.) Laura has spoken frequently about NAD and has earned a reputation for her strong judgment, rigorous analytical skills, and integrity.

Continue Reading Laura Brett Named New Director of NAD