Could the end of Section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) actually be near?  Time will tell.  But last week’s development on Capitol Hill in the saga of “Section 6(b)” is noteworthy, and, one day in the not-so-distant future, may be recognized as the beginning of the end for this controversial provision of the law.

On April 22, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) introduced legislation—the Sunshine in Product Safety Act—to fully repeal Section 6(b) of the CPSA.  This is the first time in recent memory that Members of Congress have introduced legislation to do away with Section 6(b) altogether.  For example, in the last Congress, Representative Rush introduced the “SHARE Act,” which sought primarily to scale back one of Section 6(b)’s most important protections for firms—allowing a company to judicially challenge the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (“CPSC” or “the Commission”) decision to release information about a firm, or one of its products, prior to its disclosure.  But that legislation left the rest of Section 6(b)’s procedures and protections intact.  This current bill, therefore, is much more ambitious, and stakeholders should take note.

By way of background, Section 6(b) requires the CPSC to engage in certain procedural steps before publicly disclosing information from which the identity of a manufacturer of a product can be readily ascertained.  Those include taking reasonable steps to ensure that the information to be disclosed publicly is fair, accurate, and reasonable related to effectuating the purpose of the product safety laws.  Practically speaking, this means notifying the manufacturer of the potential disclosure, providing either a summary of what the agency intends to disclose, or the actual disclosure itself, and providing the company with the opportunity to comment, typically 15 days, though that time period can be shortened by the CPSC with a “public health and safety finding.”  Other regulators, like FDA and NHTSA, do not have similar statutory constraints on the release of product information nor do they have due process protections around data release, whether those be adverse events or vehicle accidents.
Continue Reading New Bills Seek to Repeal Controversial Provision of Product Safety Act

Last week the Supreme Court unanimously held that §13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not give the Federal Trade Commission the power to seek equitable monetary relief such as disgorgement or restitution. The Court’s opinion in AMG Capital Management LLC v. Federal Trade Commission removes a powerful tool that the FTC has long relied on to pursue monetary relief for consumers in both consumer protection and competition matters.

By way of background, the FTC has authority to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practice (“UDAP”) and unfair methods of competition (“UMC”) with an overlapping but distinct set of tools it can use to pursue its dual consumer protection and competition missions:

  • Administrative Proceeding: The FTC can initiate an administrative proceeding to seek a cease and desist order for either a UDAP or UMC violation from an administrative law judge. If necessary, the FTC can later bring a contempt proceeding in federal court seeking to enforce the terms of an administrative order. A defendant may respond by arguing that it has “substantially complied” with the terms of the order. If the FTC prevails in such a case, it can seek civil penalties and other equitable relief necessary to enforce the order (however monetary relief only applies to UDAP violations).
  • Rulemaking: The FTC has authority to promulgate rules that define UDAP with specificity. Generally, this requires a lengthy, formal rulemaking process that allows for public comment, and a final rule can be challenged in federal court. If a defendant later violates a duly enacted UDAP rule, the FTC can seek civil penalties for a knowing violation. The FTC can also file suit in federal court and obtain monetary relief “to redress consumer injury,” including an order compelling “refund of money or return of property,” but only if “a reasonable man would have known under the circumstances [that the challenged conduct] was dishonest or fraudulent.”
  • Federal Court: The FTC can sue in federal court under §13(b) of the FTC Act to enjoin a defendant when the defendant “is violating, or is about to violate” a law that the FTC enforces and such an injunction is in the public’s interest. While courts have historically read §13(b) as giving the FTC an implied right to recover equitable monetary relief in addition to injunctive relief, the Supreme Court’s ruling now limits the FTC to seeking injunctive relief only.


Continue Reading The Supreme Court Limits FTC’s §13(b) Powers

On April 15, 2021, the FTC filed its first complaint under the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act (the CCP Act). The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleges that an in-state chiropractor and his company violated both the CCP Act and the FTC Act by deceptively marketing Vitamin

Promotional products seller Gennex Media LLC and its owner, Akil Kurji, have settled Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) charges that they made false, misleading, or unsupported advertising claims that their “Brandnex” customizable promotional products were “all or virtually all” made in the United States. Despite numerous claims that the company’s novelty items were “Made in the USA,” “USA Made,” and “Manufactured Right Here in America!”, the items were wholly imported from China.

The settlement requires Gennex and Kurji to pay the FTC a monetary judgment of $146,249.24. In addition to the payment, the parties are required to follow post-settlement remediation measures. Some of these measures include: (1) providing customer information to the FTC in order to ensure proper customer redress; (2) submitting compliance reports to the FTC one year post-settlement; and (3) maintaining certain business records for five years.
Continue Reading Made in USA Settlement for Chinese Imports

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted to promulgate a Direct Final Rule clarifying deadlines for the new nationwide standard for upholstered furniture flammability.  The new rule codifies the effective dates for compliance with the new national flammability standard (which incorporated California’s flammability testing standard already in effect) and allows for affected parties to comment if they are significantly adversely affected by the new rule.

Continue Reading CPSC Rulemaking Clarifies June 25, 2021 Deadline to Comply with Furniture Flammability Standard, Extends Labeling Requirement Deadline Until 2022

On March 25th, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that the agency is creating a new and dedicated “rulemaking group” within the FTC’s Office of the General Counsel.  Currently, rulemaking within the FTC is decentralized and individual bureaus are responsible for promulgating particular rules.  With this new group in place, Acting Chairwoman Rebecca Slaughter explained, the FTC can take a harmonized approach to rulemaking across its different authorities in order to prohibit unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods of competition.  This move is significant because, although the FTC has declined to engage in rulemaking for many years, it has signaled its desire for stricter enforcement for some time.  Just last year, the FTC promulgated a new “Made in USA” labeling rule in order to make the standards clear and to enable the Commission to seek civil penalties for any violations.

Continue Reading Harmonized Approach to Rulemaking: FTC Announces New Rulemaking Group