On April 14, 2025, ClassPass, a web-based company offering subscription services to third-party fitness classes, petitioned for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit’s Chabolla v. ClassPass decision, which held that ClassPass’ users were not bound by the terms of ClassPass’ “sign-in wrap” agreement. The ruling has significant consequences for online companies using sign-in wrap
On April 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the reach of Section 1964(c) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act by holding that a plaintiff may seek treble damages for a business or property loss resulting from a personal injury.[1] The 5-4 decision has resolved a 3-2 circuit split over whether
Despite other sweeping changes to the federal government under the Trump administration, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), passed under former President Biden, remains good law. Below, we report on recent trends in FDA’s implementation and enforcement of MoCRA in the early months of Trump’s presidency.
FDA is continuing to monitor the cosmetic industry’s compliance with MoCRA. On March 13, 2025, FDA released data summarizing the number of active facility registrations and product listings submitted pursuant to MoCRA’s requirements.Continue Reading MoCRA Under the Trump Era: A Look at FDA’s Monitoring and Enforcement Two Months In
“Right to Repair” laws are regulations that generally require manufacturers to give consumers and independent repair providers access to tools, parts, and information to repair certain consumer products and other equipment on fair and reasonable terms. Recently, six states—California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—have implemented their own comprehensive right to repair regulations. Click
Supply chain issues are a top concern for many companies across industries and markets. Please join Crowell & Moring for a webinar series that explores these issues and provides insights on the various legal and tactical considerations as companies think about supply chain disruption, impacts, and solutions.
In a major move by California that may be but a harbinger of a dramatic sea change in banning or severely restricting the inclusion of hundreds of chemicals present in every-day consumer goods, California just imposed upon the consumer product industry (culminating, at least most likely for 2021, right before the end of October), a sweeping range of bans that likely will fundamentally disrupt the California consumer product economy.
Continue Reading No Treats, Too Many Tricks, For PFAS This Halloween
Recalls in Review: A monthly spotlight on trending regulatory enforcement issues at the CPSC.
As winter temperatures continue to drop and we’re all looking for a way to feel cozy, many Americans reach for candles as a way to bring some light into their homes during these dark months. We don’t need to detail why
A new nationwide standard for upholstered furniture flammability was signed into law on December 27, 2020 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which includes the COVID–19 Regulatory Relief And Work From Home Safety Act. This legislation embraces the California Technical Bulletin (TB 117-2013) for testing the smolder resistance of materials used in upholstered furniture. The California standard has been mandatory in that state since 2015, so the standard should already be on the compliance radar for most national retailers.
TB 117-2013 is intended to assess the flammability of upholstered furniture when exposed to a smoldering cigarette, a common cause of residential fires. TB 117-2013 requires different tests for outer fabric, inner linings, and filling material that simulate a discarded, lit cigarette. Each material is required to survive for an extended period without creating flames or overly smoldering or charring. The previous version of the TB 117 standard also required an open flame test, which had been criticized for forcing manufacturers to use flame retardant chemicals.Continue Reading New National Standard for Flammability of Upholstered Furniture
Recalls in Review: A monthly spotlight on trending regulatory enforcement issues at the CPSC.
If you have ever owned a laptop or hoverboard self-balancing scooter, you’ve likely seen numerous headlines about the lithium-ion batteries overheating, melting, or igniting. We recently wrote about ways in which companies can mitigate risks and execute recalls related to lithium ion batteries. In today’s installment of “Recall’s in Review,” we look back at CPSC regulatory actions involving lithium-ion batteries.
The batteries have become a highly regulated product over the last several years. The Commission has conducted at least 64 recalls involving lithium-ion batteries since 2006. The number of recalls rose substantially in 2016 and 2017, many of which were related to the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries inside hoverboards and laptop computers. The Commission took a more active role in warning consumers about the hazards posed by the batteries after two incidents of overheating lead to serious house fires in March and October of 2017.
Only one civil penalty relating to lithium-ion batteries has been issued by the Commission, in early 2012. The manufacturer was fined $425,000 for failure to timely report that certain lithium-ion battery packs could overheat.
Continue Reading Recalls in Review: Lithium-ion Batteries
Over recent years, the use of lithium ion batteries has become widespread in consumer products such as laptops, smartphone, hoverboards, electric scooters and bicycles, and power banks. Unfortunately, many companies have been forced to recall their products over thermal events involving those products’ lithium ion batteries.
Manufacturers can mitigate their risks of fire hazards with