A California court of appeal has ruled valid the methods by which the state updates the list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, No. A125493 (Cal. Ct. App., decided June 6, 2011). Products containing these chemicals must be labeled with warnings to consumers. The law requires the state to update the Prop. 65 list annually and authorizes Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to add chemicals by one of three methods, including one specifically targeted in the lawsuit. The Chamber of Commerce challenged the method that requires adding to the list those chemicals identified under the Labor Code as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. According to the Chamber, this method could be used to place chemicals on the initial list only. It sought a declaration to this effect…
Category Archives Issue 398
Another tomato grower has filed a claim for damages against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that the agency announced a nationwide recall of all tomatoes in the United States in 2008 without having identified tomatoes as the source of a Salmonella outbreak. Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-01399 (D.S.C., filed June 8, 2011). Details about similar claims also filed in a South Carolina federal court appear in Issue 395 of this Update. According to the complaint, FDA ultimately conceded that tomatoes were not the source of the Salmonella contamination, but not before the price for tomatoes plunged. Alleging negligence, defamation, slander of title, product/ commercial disparagement, unconstitutional taking, and violation of unfair trade practices law, the plaintiff seeks actual damages in excess of $11 million, special damages, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Alabama and Indiana residents have filed a putative class action alleging violation of state consumer protection laws by a company that promotes its orange juice as “not from concentrate juice” and “100% pure Florida squeezed,” when it allegedly “contains orange juice concentrate and water.” Leftwich v. TWS Mktg. Group, Inc., No. 11-01879 (D. Ala., filed June 2, 2011). Seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers, the plaintiffs refer to a Food and Drug Administration letter warning the defendant that its labeling violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The plaintiffs contend that they were misled by the product labeling and that the alleged misrepresentations were a substantial factor in influencing their decisions to purchase the products. They allege a loss of money, because they were “deprived of the benefit of their bargain.” The plaintiffs allege violations of consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. Claiming…
A New York bakery and its shareholder have filed a trademark infringement action against the Food Network, claiming that its proposed “Tough Cookies” show would confuse consumers. One Tough Cookie, Inc. v. Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc., No. 11-03675 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 31, 2011). According to the complaint, the Food Network has adopted “Tough Cookies” as the name of a “reality” TV series that will air in July 2011. It is apparently based on a “specialty bakery in New Jersey” called Crazy Susan’s Cookie Co. The plaintiffs allege that they are nationally known for “concentrating in ‘edible art’ in the form of cakes, cookies, and other pastries and baked goods” and registered their One Tough Cookie® mark in 2006. The plaintiffs also allege, “Each time the ‘Tough Cookies’ television show airs, plaintiffs’ website and web server will be compromised due to television fans attempting to find the ‘Tough Cookies’ television show…
12
