“The hallmark of the continuing offense is that it perdures beyond the initial illegal act, and that ‘each day brings a renewed threat of the evil Congress sought to prevent’…” Toussie v. United States, 90 S. Ct. 858, 864 (1970). In a ruling issued May 9, the Seventh Circuit determined that a failure
Stephanie L. Crawford is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, practicing in the Government Contracts group.
Stephanie’s practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, contract and regulatory compliance reviews, and counseling on supply chain, sourcing, and national security issues. Her practice supports clients in the aerospace & defense, communications, energy, information technology, and consumer products sectors.
Product liability suits and regulatory product defect enforcement actions associated with consumer foreseeable – and unforeseeable – misuse have become the norm. Consumer product companies can mitigate these risks by focusing on use-related hazards and user-centered designs in an effort to reduce injuries and improve the usability of products. But the real question is how far to go with these efforts — at what cost and for what incremental benefit.
On March 15, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission published Draft Guidance on the Application of Human Factors to Consumer Products for industry comment by May 14, 2018. The draft guidance was developed in conjunction with Health Canada’s Consumer Product Safety Directorate. CPSC and Health Canada aim to increase product safety by explaining to product designers and manufacturers how to incorporate human factors into the design process.
The draft guidance describes the product design process and provides guidance on human factors considerations at each stage and then summarized in the graphic depictions collected at the end of this post. Because the guidance is not an enforceable rule, no cost benefit analysis accompanies the myriad of product design recommendations proposed.
Fuzzy talking toys are no longer the annoying, yet benign Christmas gifts they used to be. Many of today’s toys, like refrigerators, cars, and televisions, are “smart,” and may come gift-wrapped with all of the emerging cybersecurity risks the internet has to offer. And as various government agencies grapple with the regulation and enforcement of smart products, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may be narrowing in on smart toy manufacturers as a potential target. The FBI and FTC issued separate alerts last week highlighting potential threats posed by cuddly friends that collect children’s voices and other identifying information and putting manufacturers on notice of potential enforcement actions for failure to comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), respectively.
Earlier this month, the Consumer Product Safety Commission in tandem with the Department of Justice withdrew its “material misrepresentation” claim in its ongoing lawsuit against arts and crafts retailer Michaels Stores. The Government had alleged, inter alia, that Michaels made a material misrepresentation to the agency in its Section 15(b) Report for certain glass vases that shattered during normal handling. The Government’s withdrawal of this claim raises interesting questions as to what constitutes a “material misrepresentation” – in this case to the CPSC – and why the claim was withdrawn.