Hunton Retail Law Resource

For retailers operating in California, the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (“Prop 65”) is a constant and often costly headache. Among other requirements, Prop 65 prohibits businesses with ten or more employees, including those that ship products into California, from exposing people in California to any of the over 800 listed chemicals without first providing a “clear and reasonable” warning. The statute also contains a prohibition against discharging or releasing listed chemicals to “sources of drinking water” in the state, but those provisions are not discussed here. The list of over 800 chemicals is revised and updated annually.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

Litigation Halted:

Jury finds Pom Wonderful Failed to Prove Coke Misled Customers

A California federal jury found that Pom Wonderful failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence its claims under the Lanham Act that Coca-Cola misled customers into thinking that Minute Maid’s “Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored 100% Juice Blend” contained more than 50 percent of pomegranate and blueberry juice combined. Pom Wonderful had sought $77.5 million from Coca-Cola, claiming that the company had stolen its business by tricking consumers into buying its juice.

Over the past two years, Hunton & Williams has been carefully monitoring the application of Daimler AG v. Bauman in trial and appellate courts throughout the country. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Daimler decision articulated a standard that significantly limits the types of contacts sufficient to subject a defendant to general jurisdiction in a particular forum. Under that standard, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s contacts with the forum are so continuous and systematic as to render it “essentially at home” there. In most instances, a company is “essentially at home” only in the state where it is incorporated and the state where it operates its principal place of business. Since the opinion was issued, the risk of a company becoming subject to general jurisdiction outside its home states has substantially decreased—a largely positive outcome for companies in the retail products industry that have traditionally been subject to “all purpose” general jurisdiction in each state where they conduct business.

A recent flurry of Texas law changes have local and national retailers considering whether to prohibit customers from openly carrying weapons inside of their stores.

This past January, Texas’s “open carry” law went into effect, allowing gun owners to carry their weapons holstered either at their hip or on their shoulder. The Texas law does have limitations, including an exclusion banning open carry on the premises of restaurants and bars that make more than 51 percent of their gross profits from alcohol sales, and, significant for retailers, a provision that allows businesses to prohibit open carry on their premises, as long as they post certain specified signage alerting customers of the ban.

This past week, the following consumer protection actions made headlines:

NAD Actions

Rust-Oleum to Appeal NAD Ruling on “2X” Product Names and Marketing

The National Advertising Division of the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council (“NAD”) has recommended that Rust-Oleum Corp. stop making claims that its “Painter’s Touch Ultra Cover 2X Spray Paint” has double the coverage capacity as competing spray paints. The NAD also has recommended that Rust-Oleum change the product name. Rust-Oleum plans to appeal NAD’s decision to the National Advertising Review Board. NAD also found Rust-Oleum’s in-house testing to be lacking and its marketing claims to be unsupported by testing.

The trend of consumer products brand acquisitions that we identified in Looking Ahead: Retail Antitrust Enforcement in 2016 continued this week with announcements of three separate acquisitions:

On March 9, 2016, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice lawyers released a management guide on the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), entitled “Overview of the EU General Data Protection Regulation,” addressing the key impacts the new law will have on businesses. This high-level management guide is intended to provide companies with a roadmap to the Regulation, focusing on topics such as expanded territorial scope, data breach notification rules, the One-Stop Shop concept and the right to be forgotten.

Later this month, we will be ...

After a February 2015 proposed rulemaking (the “NPRM”) faced a firestorm of comments, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) has determined “that further engagement with industry and stakeholders is needed” before any attempt is made to finalize regulations for very small unmanned aircraft systems, also known as “Micro UAS.” In response, the FAA chartered the Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (“ARC”) to continue the review process and prepare recommendations to the FAA for future rulemakings. As originally conceived by the NPRM, Micro UAS are drones weighing less than 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) that are constructed of malleable materials that will break, bend or “yield on impact so as to present a minimal hazard to any person or object.” The Micro UAS ARC was formed amidst pressure from drone manufacturers and commercial users to appropriately balance safety and privacy concerns with wider drone use.

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission laid down a clear marker for retailers in announcing a settlement with Lord & Taylor. This is the agency’s first native advertising case since issuing its Enforcement Policy Statement on Deceptively Formatted Advertising and its Native Advertising Business Guidance in December 2015.

As reported on the Hunton Employment and Labor Law Blog, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has implemented nationwide procedures which require all EEOC offices to release copies of an employer’s entire position statement, together with all non-confidential documents submitted in support of the position statement, to an employee who has filed a discrimination charge, or his or her representative (including attorneys). These procedures apply to all position statements requested after January 1, 2016. Previously, such disclosures were made in the discretion of the particular field offices or investigators, and practices were inconsistent. As often as not, EEOC investigators might summarize the employer’s evidence and arguments for the employee, in order to solicit the latter’s response.