“If even the ad industry can’t agree on the definition of an online ad, who can?,” asks The Washington Post’s Cecilia Kang in this November 2 article highlighting the “increasingly thorny debate on how to monitor advertising aimed at children when they are confronted with so many new forms of marketing online.” Kang reports that both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission regulate traditional media but have thus far failed to restrict online advertising to kids, leading consumer groups to question the supposedly “lax oversight of digital marketing.” “There is a great deal of research that shows children don’t distinguish between content and advertising,” American University Communications Professor Kathryn Montgomery was quoted as saying. “Now on digital, there is the opportunity of more blurring of those lines, and the industry is pushing to keep definitions of online advertising broad and unclear.” In particular, Kang notes that even…
Category Archives Issue
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has asked members of the U.S. House of Representatives to exclude certain provisions in the Farm Bill that would limit the government’s authority to conduct environmental analyses of genetically engineered (GE) crops. According to CSPI, “the bill language at issue would specifically limit the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s regulatory review to specific issues, such as whether the engineered crops could act as ‘plant pests’—a scenario CSPI says is not supported by science. Instead, Congress should write stand-alone legislation that would give USDA specific regulatory authority over genetically engineered crops and consider the full range of actual potential problems with such crops, such as the development of weeds or insects that were resistant to the crops’ technology, and the impact of gene flow to weedy relatives.” CSPI Biotechnology Director Greg Jaffe asks, “Why would Congress add to the public’s skepticism of genetically engineered crops by…
University of Arkansas School of Law LL.M. Candidate Lauren Handel has considered whether food-labeling provisions, such as those that would have been required under California’s Proposition 37 (Prop. 37), which voters defeated this week, are vulnerable to constitutional or preemption challenges. Had it been enacted, Prop. 37 would have required most food companies to label their products with a statement indicating that they contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients and would have prohibited the use of the term “natural” on processed food products as inherently misleading to consumers. In her article titled “Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods: A Constitutional Analysis of California’s Proposition 37,” Handel explores the First Amendment standards applied to commercial speech and concludes that the state would not have been able to justify a ban on “natural” claims, and that whether consumers’ “right to know” about GE ingredients trumps food companies’ commercial speech rights is debatable. She also concludes that…
The General Court of the European Union (EU) has dismissed an annulment action brought by Hungary, seeking to overturn a protected Slovakian designation of origin for wine produced in the Tokaj region which both countries share. Hungary v. Commission, Case T-194/10 (Gen. Ct., decided November 8, 2012). Hungary will have two months to bring an appeal to the Court of Justice, as to points of law only. The European Commission registered the protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnicka oblast’ Tokaj’ on Slovakia’s behalf in the 2006 and 2007 lists of quality wines produced in specified regions (QWPSR). On July 31, 2009, the day before the EU established the E-Bacchus database to publish the QWPSR lists, Slovakia requested a modified designation— ‘Tokajská/Tokajské/Tokajsky vinohradnicka oblast’—which became the new protected designation on the electronic database. Several months later, Slovakia requested that the Commission revert to the original designation of origin, and the Commission amended the…
A putative class action filed in a California state court claims that Monster Rehab®, a green tea and energy drink, contains unknown amounts of epigallocatechin-3-gallate (ECGC), “an extremely dangerous and potentially lethal ingredient,” and that the company fails to warn consumers of its potential hepatotoxic side effects. Wooding v. Monster Energy Co., No. 30-2012-00609716 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., filed November 5, 2012). While the named plaintiff, a Huntington Beach, California, resident, has not apparently experienced any side effects, she claims to have “suffered injury in fact and has lost money and property as a result of the unfair, deceptive, untrue and misleading advertising described herein, including the purchase price for products that are of little or no value and are dangerous.” Among other matters, the plaintiff claims that those with compromised livers should not drink the product, nor should it be consumed with alcohol. Yet, she points to ads…
A Colorado resident has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative nationwide class against Pepperidge Farm, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its Cheddar Goldfish crackers “natural,” because they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) “in the form of soy and/or soy derivatives.” Bolerjack v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., No. 12-2918 (D. Colo., filed November 6, 2012). Claiming damages in excess of $5 million, the plaintiff claims that she “purchased the Product believing it to be ‘Natural’ because he [sic] read and relied on Pepperidge Farm’s material statement that the Product is ‘Natural,’ prominently displayed on the Product’s front labeling/packaging. Plaintiff has been damaged by her purchase of the Product because the labeling and advertising for the Product was and is false and/or misleading under Colorado law; therefore, the Product is worth less than what Plaintiff paid for it and/ or Plaintiff did not receive what he [sic]…
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc. investors have reportedly filed a consolidated securities action against the company, claiming that they were misled about demand for Keurig and K-Cup products. La. Mun. Police Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., No. 11-00289 (D. Vt., filed October 29, 2012). The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System sued the company for U.S. securities law violations in November 2011 when Green Mountain’s shares fell 34 percent in a single day, losing $3.1 billion in market value, after quarterly sales fell short of analysts’ expectations. A group of pension funds, seeking to represent all company investors, allege that “[u]nbeknownst to investors, and contrary to defendants’ statements that they were barely able to ship orders as they came in, Green Mountain Coffee Roaster’s warehouses were overflowing with unused and expiring coffee products that were not being sold to consumers.” The company is facing increasing competition as…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has filed a putative nationwide class action in a federal court in California against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers, through marketing and product labeling, to believe that the antioxidants contained in its beverages are derived from fruits and that the company’s use of antioxidants in soft drinks violates contrary Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. Green v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., No. ___ (C.D. Cal., filed November 8, 2012). By using the term “antioxidant” in the names of some of its beverages, the company allegedly distinguishes its products “from similar soft drinks and, thereby, command[s] a premium price for the Products.” According to the complaint, “Contrary to Defendant’s claims and representations, the Products do not contain any real cherries, real berries, or even extracts from those fruits. Nor do the Products derive their antioxidant…
Voters in Richmond and El Monte, California, have rejected measures that would have taxed soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks at a penny-per-ounce rate. According to media sources, Richmond City Councilmember Jeff Ritterman initially proposed Measure N as a way to discourage residents from consuming sugary drinks, which he identified as a prime culprit behind the rise in diabetes, obesity, heart failure, and other related issues. “I’m disappointed, but overall I think this has been a positive for Richmond,” said Ritterman. “It’s started a great conversation in this community. I think President Obama should (propose a soda tax). [Governor] Jerry Brown should. This is just the beginning of the wave.” See San Francisco Chronicle, November 7, 2012. While 67 percent of Richmond’s electorate apparently voted against Measure N, 77 percent of voters in the Los Angeles suburb of El Monte also rejected a soft drink tax—an outcome that a November 7 Huffington Post…
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has sent a letter to Monster Beverage CEO Rodney Sacks, asking the company to provide proof that the large dosages of caffeine contained in its popular Monster energy drinks are “completely safe” for consumption by adolescents and adults. Monster Beverage Corp. has come under increased scrutiny following reports last week to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the product may be linked to as many as five deaths since 2009. Herrera issued the letter under provisions of California’s Unfair Competition Law that empowers city attorneys to demand evidence for purportedly fact-based advertising claims. “Although you claim that Monster Energy drinks are ‘completely safe,’” Herrera writes, “there is increasing evidence that the high caffeine levels in your products are dangerous, particularly for the youth whom you target with your advertising. As numerous scientific studies have concluded, consuming large amounts of caffeine can have serious health…
