Since the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published its updated 2023 Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising earlier this year, consumer reviews have been front of mind. This guidance covers, in part, the treatment of consumer reviews, and companies have been (or should be) preparing for an uptick in FTC enforcement. But it’s not just the FTC to watch out for. A recent wave of class actions arising under California Civil Code § 1670.8 related to a customer’s right to make statements about their experience with a seller has raised the bar for retailers to another level.Continue Reading I Can’t Say What? New Wave of Class Actions Target Consumer Review Terms & Conditions
What a company knew and when is a critical question in any lawsuit involving recalled products. And the answer may be complicated, particularly when a manufacturer announces multiple recalls and expands previous recalls.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Mid-America Pet Food Faces Putative Class Action Over Recalled Pet Food Products
Bayer Healthcare LLC (Bayer) is the latest in a long line of companies to be hit with a consumer class action lawsuit over recalled personal care products containing benzene—a carcinogen found in a variety of consumer products, including most notoriously, aerosol deodorant, sunscreen, and dry shampoo.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Benzene Continues To Be A Hot Button Issue
More than two years after consumers across the country first started filing suit against Philips Respironics (Philips) over certain recalled sleep apnea devices, the company announced that it has reached an agreement to pay $479 million to compensate consumers. Philips voluntarily recalled several different models of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bilateral positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machines and ventilators back in June 2021. In the months that followed, Philips was inundated with lawsuits by consumers, which alleged that Philips knew about the serious risk of injury posed by its recalled devices long before any public announcement. Hundreds of consumer-facing lawsuits were ultimately consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in In re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation.Continue Reading Recall Litigation Report: Philips Reaches Settlement in CPAP/BiPAP MDL
In Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, the Southern District of New York weighed in on the ongoing debate over whether scientific evidence offered in relation to a motion for class certification must meet the Daubert standard of reliability, which has been the subject of a deepening circuit split. In dicta, the Supreme Court implied that expert evidence at the class certification stage likely would be required to meet the standards of Daubert in at least some circumstances, but it has yet to definitely decide the issue. The Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits require scientific evidence to satisfy a full Daubert analysis at the class certification stage, while the Eighth Circuit requires only a “limited” Daubert analysis. The remaining circuits, including the Second Circuit, have not yet issued clear rulings on the matter. Continue Reading N.Y. Federal Court Says Daubert and Rule 702 Gatekeeping Role “Ill Suited” for Class Certification
California businesses have been nervously waiting for the first class action asserting a violation of California’s now-infamous California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
The wait is now over.
The CCPA, a consumer privacy law that Crowell & Moring has analyzed and written about at length provides California consumers with a private right of action when…
This article originally appeared in Bloomberg BNA.
When Subway faced a class action over its “footlong” sandwiches coming up short, a quick settlement seemed like a good bet. Instead the case became a memorable example of how the courts and the Justice Department are cracking down on settlements that often…
Join Us For A Complimentary Webinar – Thursday, October 25, 2018 – 12:00 – 1:00 PM ET
Two years into the Trump Administration and:
- The Consumer Product Safety Commission finally has a Republican majority,
- the Department of Transportation has released its 3.0 guidance on autonomous vehicles,
- NIST has published a 375 page recommendation on medical
Earlier this summer, President Trump nominated Republican Peter Feldman to serve as the fifth commissioner on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The Senate has now confirmed Mr. Feldman to both (1) serve out the remainder of former Commissioner Joe Mohorovic’s term, which expires in October 2019; and (2)…
Recent years have seen federal courts applying increased scrutiny to proposed “multistate” class actions that invoke a hodgepodge of state consumer-protection laws. The main reason: The variations among these state laws are not only extensive but often case-determinative, preventing class representatives from proving their claims on a classwide basis.
These decisions have, in turn, raised another question that has divided judges, commentators, and practitioners: Does the same high bar apply to the certification of nationwide classes that are purely vehicles for settlement—meaning that the court will never have to address the practical and legal difficulties of managing an actual classwide trial involving fifty (or more) state laws? In late January the Ninth Circuit weighed in to answer that it does, in a potentially seminal opinion that could, in the words of one dissenting judge, strike a “major blow” to multistate class action settlements.