The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld a municipal ordinance charging a $0.20 "waste reduction fee" for paper grocery bags and prohibiting disposable plastic bags, ruling the charge is part of a regulatory program of waste management and not a tax. Colo. Union of Taxpayers Found. v. City of Aspen, No. 16SC377 (Colo., entered May 21, 2018). After two members of the plaintiff advocacy group paid the bag charge in Aspen, the group sued the city and members of the city council alleging the charge was a tax subject to voter approval under the state's Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in the city’s favor. The court noted that grocers are permitted to retain a portion of the $0.20 charge to provide information to customers, train staff and improve collection and administration, while the remainder is submitted to the city on a form separate…
Category Archives State Courts
Burger King Corp. faces a civil-rights lawsuit after an employee at a Boston location accused a man of trying to pay for food with an allegedly counterfeit $10 bill, refused to return the bill and called the police when the man would not leave the restaurant. Ellis v. Burger King Corp., No. 1884-CV-01489 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., filed May 14, 2018). The plaintiff, who is homeless and black, alleges that when he was arraigned, he was charged with possession of counterfeit notes and a probation violation and was subsequently held without bail from November 12, 2015, until February 19, 2016. He was reportedly released when the U.S. Secret Service notified the prosecutor that the $10 bill was authentic and not counterfeit. Burger King allegedly did not return the $10 bill to the man. Claiming conversion, defamation, negligence and violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, the plaintiff seeks attorney's fees and $950,000…
A California appeals court has affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit asserting that Sutter Home Winery Inc.'s wine should feature a warning about arsenic content pursuant to the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Charles v. Sutter Home Winery Inc., No. B275295 (Cal. App. Ct., 2nd Dist., entered May 9, 2018). While Sutter Home's wines feature the "safe harbor" alcohol warning pertaining to cancer and birth-defect risks, the plaintiffs argued that the labels should also reference risks associated with consuming inorganic arsenic. Failing to disclose the inorganic arsenic level, the plaintiffs asserted, amounted to a Prop. 65 violation. "Plaintiffs contend the safe harbor warning for alcoholic beverages is incomplete because it does not alert consumers to the presence of inorganic arsenic, and by this omission, the warning misleads consumers into believing their exposure is limited to a single listed chemical, alcohol," the…
Binny's Beverage Depot faces a putative class action alleging the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting and sharing employee biometric information without informed consent. Burger v. Gold Standard Enters., Inc., No. 2018CH05904 (Ill. Ch. Ct., Cook Cty., filed May 7, 2018). The plaintiff alleges that Binny's established a fingerprint-based time-clock program and shared the collected data with third-party payroll processors and data-storage vendors without providing its employees "informed written consent, and without informing them through a publicly available written policy of how it was going to store and dispose of this irreplaceable information," and "failed to maintain lawful data retention practices which reduce the risk of theft or other misappropriation of its workers' biometrics by unauthorized third parties." The risk was compounded, the complaint asserts, because the biometric data was linked to Social Security numbers, addresses, birth dates and "potentially other relevant financial information." Claiming violations of…
A vintner has filed a lawsuit alleging Colorado's “wine development fee,” charged to wholesalers, is an unconstitutional excise tax. Vineland Corp. v. Colorado, No. 18-30199 (Colo. D.C., filed April 24, 2018). Since 1990, Colorado has imposed a 10-year renewable excise tax of one cent per liter on all vinous liquors sold in the state. In 1992, the state passed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR), which mandated advance voter approval for extension of expiring taxes; in 1997, the legislature amended the 1990 act, renaming the excise tax a “wine development fee.” The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the fee is “an impermissible attempt to extend an expiring tax without voter approval, and that this attempt to rename an excise tax surcharge [] without such voter approval is a violation of TABOR.” Further, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and a refund of all fees paid in the past four fiscal…
The American Heart Association, Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition and Anti-Hunger and Nutrition Coalition have filed a lawsuit to appeal and amend the ballot title and summary of an initiative that would ban Washington's local governments from levying new taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). In re Ballot Title & Summary for Initiative No. 1634, No. 18-2-01924-34 (Wash. Super. Ct., filed April 9, 2018). The petition alleges that after Seattle's SSB tax took effect January 1, 2018, beverage industry groups filed the initiative in an attempt to stop other jurisdictions from adopting similar taxes. The petition also alleges that the ballot title and summary are “misleading and prejudicial” because they purport to ban new taxes on "groceries," a measure that the advocacy groups predict would be “disfavored” by voters.
In-N-Out Burger has reportedly requested a restraining order against a YouTube video creator who allegedly posed as the company's CEO at two of its restaurants. The man allegedly argued with employees, demanded that kitchen employees prepare him food for a “taste test,” and took food out of a customer's hand, threw it on the floor and stepped on it. In a statement, a company executive reportedly said, “We have recently seen an increase of visitors to our stores, who are not customers but instead are intentionally disruptive and who then try to promote themselves through social media.” The lawsuit also petitions the Los Angeles Superior Court to impose a $1,000 fine for each violation of the restraining order and seeks damages of more than $25,000 for fraud, trespass, nuisance and criminal violations.
A California state court has reportedly approved a class action settlement that will provide vouchers or cash to state residents who bought Safeway olive oil allegedly falsely labeled as “imported from Italy.” Kumar v. Safeway, No. RG14726707 (Cal. Super. Ct., entered March 16, 2018). The class alleged that Safeway labeled its olive oil as imported and “extra virgin” but manufactured it from olives grown and pressed outside Italy. The settlement reportedly offers class members $0.25 to $0.75 or vouchers worth up to $1.50; attorneys were awarded more than $1.4 million in fees and expenses and the named plaintiff will receive $6,490.
The Ninth Circuit has granted an en banc rehearing of its September 2017 decision to block a San Francisco ordinance requiring health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) on the grounds that it unduly burdened and chilled speech protected by the First Amendment. Am. Beverage Ass’n. v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 16-16072 (9th Cir., entered January 29, 2018). The September ruling overturned a 2016 district court decision determining that the city’s interest in public health and safety was a reasonable basis to enforce the ordinance, which required black-box warning labels on all advertising for SSBs that could take up as much as 20 percent of the advertising space. In addition, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Philadelphia’s SSB tax that claims the 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax violates state law; the challengers allege that because the tax is levied on distributors and ultimately borne by…
In a settlement with California, The Gatorade Co. has agreed to stop suggesting that drinking water harms athletes. California v. Gatorade Co., No. BC676734 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., entered September 21, 2017). Gatorade launched a mobile game featuring Usain Bolt that featured the runner speeding up when he ran over the Gatorade logo and slowing down when he touched water droplets. The complaint alleged that players were instructed to “Keep Your Performance Level High By Avoiding Water” and claimed Gatorade violated state unfair competition and false advertising laws. Under the settlement agreement, Gatorade will no longer make the “Bolt!” app available in any form that “creates the misleading impression” that water will hinder athletic performance or that water should be avoided. Gatorade also agreed not to make “statements that disparage water or the consumption of water” and will include a provision in contracts with endorsers that “clearly and…
