The “Fourth Tier” of Beer: Internet Sales and Direct-to-Consumer Delivery

Posted by:

In previous posts, we discussed the background of the three-tier system of alcohol sales in the United States – manufacturer (or importer), distributor, and retailer.  For the beer consumer, historically this has meant purchasing beer immediately, in person, at a restaurant, bar or liquor store.  Each state has its own licensing requirements and operational rules for such brick-and-mortar sites selling beer.  But with the ubiquity and borderless nature of the internet, what some call the “fourth tier” of craft beer sales is rapidly taking root.  Following models previously used in the wine industry, several beer delivery websites and cell phone apps are now available, with the proprietors often providing “services” to otherwise licensed beer sellers (i.e. not taking legal possession of or selling the products themselves, but instead acting as service-providers to the licensed sellers).  For regional brands without an expansive distribution footprint, and for the craft beer lovers who seek out those regional beers, this is a promising development.

States have begun to reshape their policies and laws to accommodate this relatively new direct-to-consumer beer delivery conduit.  As can be expected in this early developmental stage, there is a wide range of permitted activity among the different states.  The most permissive regulations in a small number of states allow suppliers, both in-state and out-of-state, to make unlimited shipments for consumers’ personal use.  Other states require suppliers to obtain a simple permit in order to ship beer direct to consumers.  Certain states only permit direct-to-consumer shipments from in-state breweries, along with outbound shipments to out-of-state consumers.  Some states allow outbound shipments to other states but no in-state shipments whatsoever.  Several states prohibit direct-to-consumer shipments of beer altogether.  Perhaps needless to say, potential international sales present an entirely different set of complications.

In California, beer (not wine, which is treated differently) can be sold directly to consumers via the internet with certain restrictions.  These restrictions are not directed at the internet as a sales medium per se – instead, the restrictions stem more from the historical requirements placed on importation and off-premises alcohol retailers.  (See, e.g., California Business and Professions Code §§ 23661 and 23671.)  With respect to retail sales, the seller must already be licensed to sell beer in California by “traditional” means.  First, the seller must have a licensed brick-and-mortar location in California.  Second, the seller must keep their inventory at that particular location (i.e. no shipments directly from the seller’s suppliers).  Third, the seller has to sell (or at least be able to sell) products at that location itself and not solely online – in other words, the seller must have a real in-person sales facility, not just a warehouse to service internet sales.  (See 4 California Code of Regulations § 27.)  With respect to sales directly from California-based beer manufacturers, the California ABC has determined that “as a matter of policy,” beer manufacturers are permitted to make online sales of beer to consumers.  (See Form ABC-409.)  It remains to be seen, however, if California will continue to allow beer delivery websites and apps to operate under the auspices of “services” or if additional requirements will be imposed on such providers.  (It’s also worth noting that the U.S. Postal Service will not transport alcohol – that must be done through a private carrier.)

It is easy to see that anyone wishing to distribute beer by online sales, especially across state lines, can quickly put themselves at risk of regulatory or legal issues.  If you are a brewery, retailer, or beer delivery service that wishes to engage in internet or other direct-to-consumer sales, it is advisable to contact qualified counsel for assistance before beginning or expanding such service.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Addresses The Future of Fashion

Posted by:

On January 30, 2018, the USC Gould Law School presented “The Future of Fashion,” a panel discussion co-hosted by the IP & Technology Law and Art Law Societies at USC.  Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney Aleen Tomassian was one of the expert panelists invited to discuss the current state of intellectual property law as it affects the fashion industry, and to discuss how recent court decisions affect the future of the industry.

USC Panel – Aleen Tomassian (Center)

A major point of discussion involved the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent Varsity Brands v. Star Athletica decision, a copyright case that concerned design features on cheerleading uniforms.  Historically, articles of clothing have not generally afforded copyright protection because they are considered “useful articles.”  But the Supreme Court held that the design features of the uniforms in issue were protectable because they were works of art which could be imagined separately from the useful article into which they were incorporated.    Many have suggested that the holding in Star Athletica signals that broad copyright protection would be available for articles of clothing.  But the USC panel discussion made  clear that Star Athletica affirmed that copyright protection is available for design elements as distinct from “useful articles,” and the recognized protection is not available to clothing in general.

The panel addressed the unique intellectual property issues that the fashion industry faces.  There was a broad discussion about the economic and moral impact of “copycat” designs on society and the effects of “knockoffs” on innovation.  Since fashion designs are not specifically protected under U.S. law, the conversation highlighted how attorneys skilled in fashion law use a combination of available forms of protection, including copyright, trademark, trade dress and design and utility patents.  A recent example is the pending case of Puma SE v. Forever 21, Inc., USDC Central District of California Case No. 2:17-cv-02523, in which Puma asserts that it has distinctive shoe designs in a line called Fenty Shoes that is promoted by singer Rhianna.  Puma contends that Forever 21 engaged in deliberate copying of some of its Fenty Shoes designs, notably the popular “Creeper”, “Fur Slide” and “Bow Slide” models.  To protect its designs, Puma alleged infringement of design patents, trade dress and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and copyright.  Puma’s copyright claims attempt to leverage the Star Athletica decision by contending that certain elements of the Fenty Shoes “can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional works of art separate from the Fenty Shoes” and “would qualify as protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works – either on their own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression.”   Under the Star Athletica standard, to allow this type of copyright infringement claim, the court will have to determine that “the separately identified feature has the capacity to exist apart from the utilitarian aspects” of the shoe.  “If the feature is not capable of existing as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work once separated from the useful article” – the shoe – then it is a utilitarian feature and not subject to copyright protection.

The attorneys at Conkle, Kremer & Engel have years of experience navigating the complex legal and intellectual property issues faced by clients in the fashion industry.  Our attorneys help clients protect their brands to ensure their continued success in this demanding and fast-paced industry.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm’s “Spa Weekend” at the International Salon and Spa Expo

Posted by:

On January 27th and 28th, 2018, attorneys from Conkle, Kremer & Engel attended the International Salon and Spa Expo (ISSE), which is hosted annually by the Professional Beauty Association (PBA).  At ISSE, CK&E attorneys met with clients and other beauty professionals to help them expand their business frontiers and address concerns about intellectual property, regulatory compliance, and  contractual relations.  CK&E attorneys also relished the opportunity to observe first-hand the latest trends and exciting new spa and cosmetic products.

Sheet masks and other Korean beauty products continued to be as popular as they have been in the past few years. But more palpable this year at ISSE was the recent movement towards “inclusive beauty,” emphasizing a range of culturally enlightened products that appeal to a wider range of consumers of different ethnicities, ages, genders and abilities.  Exhibitors displayed a wide range of products intended for people with all skin and hair types and colors.  Many brands showcased hypoallergenic and natural products with few ingredients, suitable for use on consumers with allergies or medical conditions.  There were also more personal care products geared towards men than there have been in previous years.

ISSE offered a wide array of complimentary educational programs related to the beauty industry, including classes regarding the importance of social media presence for artists and brands.  CK&E attorneys remain ready to provide their clients with legal assistance in the ever-changing world of social media by keeping up to date on developments in social media.  At ISSE, attorneys Evan Pitchford and Desiree Ho attended “Getting It Right On Instagram,” a seminar hosted by long-time beauty industry executive and social media guru Gordon Miller, CEO of Hairbrained, an online community for craft hairdressers and colorists to connect and share their work.

For next year, PBA has already announced that it will launch STYL on January 26-28, 2019, a new event that PBA promises is not an expo or convention, but rather “STYL is an experience where the leaders, learners, students, owners and the beauty industry come together from across the country.”

CK&E is proud to be a member of the PBA and other professional beauty organizations, and is delighted to be in its third decade of helping domestic and international businesses of all sizes grow and evolve to meet their goals in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Desiree Ho, Glen Pacek, Karl Sweis and Evan Pitchford at Sweis Moroccanoil booth

CK&E attorneys Mark Kremer and Amanda Washton sample industry trends at ISSE

Gordon Miller (far right) of Hairbrained moderates Instagram panel

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Prop 65 Trouble is Brewing for Coffee Sellers

Posted by:

A brewing case spells trouble for coffee shops in California.  Coffee sellers including Starbucks, Target and Whole Foods are in the midst of an ongoing lawsuit with the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) over the presence of acrylamide in coffee.

Acrylamide is on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals which California has declared are known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.  While acrylamide is not found in raw foods, the chemical can form in starchy and carbohydrate rich foods, such as potatoes, when cooked at high temperatures.  Acrylamide is a natural byproduct of the coffee roasting process, and is formed when the sugars and amino acids of the coffee bean are heated.

CERT (associated with Raphael Metzger of the Metzger Law Group) is a well-known plaintiff in Prop 65 cases of this sort, and this is not the first time CERT has been involved in litigation over acrylamide in food and drink products.  Acrylamide was added to the Proposition 65 list in 1990 based on studies showing it as a potential carcinogen in industrial exposures.  In April 2002, a subsequent study by the Swedish National Food Administration revealed high levels of the chemical in various high carbohydrate foods which are cooked at high temperatures, including french fries, potato chips, crackers, and bread.  CERT filed suit that same year against McDonalds and Burger King over the presence of acrylamide in french fries.  The fast-food retailers eventually settled and agreed to post Prop 65 warnings.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has set the No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for acrylamide at 0.2 µg/day.  NSRL is the level of exposure at which chemicals on the Prop 65 list are deemed to pose no significant risk, and for which a Prop 65 warning is not required.  CERT v. Starbuck Corp., et al was originally filed in 2010 against 90 coffee sellers.  The suit claimed that defendants’ coffee contained 4-100x more acrylamide than the NSRL.  During the first phase of a two-phase bench trial, defendants argued that the level of acrylamide in their coffee products posed no significant risk because a multitude of studies show that coffee consumption does not increase the risk of cancer.  The court rejected this argument because the studies assessed the effects of coffee generally, as opposed to the presence of acrylamide in the coffee.  Defendants’ argument that requiring them to post a Prop 65 warning amounts to unconstitutional forced speech was also rejected.

The second phase of the trial began in September 2017.  During this bench trial, defendants argued that coffee is exempt from the NSRL standard, and rather an “alternative risk level” applies.  Proposition 65 allows for a higher “alternative risk level” to apply to chemicals produced in the process of cooking foods to make them palatable or safe.  Since acrylamide in coffee is naturally produced during the roasting process, Defendants argue that they are subject to this exemption.

A ruling is expected soon, and if CERT succeeds, California coffee sellers will be required to post Proposition 65 warnings.  Several coffee retailers who were initially named in the lawsuit have already posted warnings in their stores.  7-Eleven, who opted to settle the suit, agreed to post warnings and pay a $900,000 fee.  While Starbucks continues to challenge the suit, it has already posted warnings at its stores, presumably to limit damages it may have to pay if CERT succeeds at trial.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys will continue to monitor and report on the outcome of this case.  CK&E has many years of experience advising clients about Proposition 65 and other regulatory compliance issues they face.  Our attorneys help clients stay out of legal hot water by working with them to ensure their products continue to meet all legal requirements, and helping them plan for foreseeable changes in the law.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Trending At Indie Beauty Expo

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys Amanda Washton and Desiree Ho attended the Indie Beauty Expo in Los Angeles to take note of emerging trends in the beauty industry.  More than 100 brands exhibited their products at  this event, many of which recognized a key trend in the beauty market – consumers are becoming increasingly attentive to what is in their products and where their money is going.  Countless brands touted business practices such as sharing profits with charitable causes, as well as product features like “vegan,” “natural,” and “organic.”  The simpler the ingredient list, the better.  The product packaging and displays reflected this gravitation towards simplicity – minimalist typography, clean lines in the artwork, and monochromatic color schemes.

As more companies hop onboard the “organic” and “natural” train, beauty brands should be careful about their advertising and labeling to avoid drawing adverse attention of regulators and others policing the market.  Conkle, Kremer & Engel has published multiple blog posts throughout the years concerning “natural” and “organic” product claims.  Selling “natural” products in California can be particularly hazardous without the right guidance – “natural” ingredients may be subject to Proposition 65, as CK&E has explained in the past.  Manufacturers would do well to remember that the California Supreme Court has warned, particularly in claims of organic contents, “labels matter.”

With decades of beauty industry experience helping companies grow and protect their businesses, CK&E attorneys routinely guide clients through the process of complying with Proposition 65 and other complex regulatory schemes.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

How Does Marijuana Legalization Affect Employer Workplace Policies?

Posted by:

Do I have to change my drug-free workplace policy now that marijuana is legal?

On January 1, 2018, recreational marijuana became legal in California.  That raises a few questions, to put it mildly.  For California employers and employees, one of the first questions is, must employers change their drug-free workplace policies now that cannabis use is legal?

Generally speaking, the answer is no.  A California employer can still keep its drug-free workplace policy (as long as it was legally compliant before January 1) that prohibits the use of alcohol and drugs, including cannabis, in the workplace.  There is even a California Health and Safety Code statute protecting employers: The legalization of cannabis use “does not amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt…[t]he rights and obligations of public and private employers to maintain a drug and alcohol free workplace or require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale, or growth of cannabis in the workplace, or affect the ability of employers to have policies prohibiting the use of cannabis by employees and prospective employees, or prevent employers from complying with state or federal law.”

Does this mean I can terminate an employee who tests positive for cannabis?

Yes, if you have a zero-tolerance policy that provides for dismissal of employees who test positive for drugs.  An employer can keep its drug-free workplace policy and test employees for alcohol and drugs, including cannabis, in compliance with the law.  That means that an employer can refuse to hire an employee who tests positive for cannabis.  It also means that an employer can ask an employee to take a drug test when the employer reasonably suspects the employee is under the influence of any substances prohibited under the employer’s policy.  An employer can terminate an employee who refuses to take the test, or who tests positive for those prohibited substances, including cannabis.

What if the employee is using marijuana to treat a disability?

With all the medical leave and disability discrimination laws protecting employees with certain medical conditions, employers are also understandably nervous about terminating an employee who relies on medical marijuana.  For now, employers can rest easy.  Because federal law still prohibits cannabis use, both state and federal law refuse to protect the employee’s illegal drug use, even if the employee is using medical marijuana, with a prescription, to treat a medical condition.

Of course, cannabis law is quickly evolving.  From legalizing marijuana at the state level in parts of the country, to rescinding “hands-off policies” at the federal level that were intended to leave states to decide on the cannabis issue on their own, cannabis laws are subject to change.  Employers should keep a close eye on the interaction between federal and state laws on cannabis use, and be prepared to modify their drug policies as needed.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are experienced with counseling employers who face a constantly changing landscape of laws, ordinances, and regulations, and resolving employment issues as they arise.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

What’s in Your Packaging? Prop 65 Applies to PVDC

Posted by:

Can your product wrap subject you to Proposition 65 warning requirements?  You bet.  California has added vinylidene chloride to its long list of chemicals to which Proposition 65 applies, effective on December 29, 2017.  The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has not established a safe harbor level for vinylidene chloride, although that remains under consideration.

Vinylidene chloride is used in the production of polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) copolymers. PVDC was developed by Dow Chemical Company, and was at one point used in the production of the popular food wrap product, Saran Wrap. PVDC has characteristics ideal for food packaging because it has low permeabiltiy to water vapor and gasses. While use of PVDC in Saran Wrap was later phased out due to cost and environmental concerns, other copolymers of vinylidene chloride are still commonly used in food packaging, including box overwrap, vertical form fill seal, horizontal form fill seal, and pre-made bags. Vinylidene chloride is also extensively used in a variety of other packing materials, as flame retardant coating for fiber and carpet backing and in piping, coating for steel pipes, and adhesive applications. Other common consumer products that may contain vinylidene chloride include cleaning cloths, filters, screens, tape, shower curtains, garden furniture, artificial turf, doll hair, stuffed animals, fabrics, fishnet, and shoe insoles.

Manufacturers, distributors and retailers are required to provide Prop 65 warnings to workers and consumers who are exposed to vinylidene chloride.  Companies have one year from the listing date to comply with Prop 65.  Companies that have not reformulated their products to remove vinylidene chloride, or that fail to provide a Proposition 65 warning on products containing it, by December 29, 2018 are at risk of receiving a “Notice of Violation” from private enforcers seeking to gain thousands of dollars in penalties and attorneys’ fees.  A Notice of Violation typically precedes a lawsuit for violation of Proposition 65.

The listing of vinylidene chloride as a chemical known to cause cancer by OEHHA is a reminder that not only product contents, but also packaging materials, are included within Prop 65 compliance requirements.  As we previously reported, since December 2014, products sold in California that contain diisononyl phthalate (DINP) have required a Proposition 65 warning.  DINP is found is many soft plastic and vinyl products, and purported violations have been found in seemingly innocuous packaging, such as gift bags for cosmetic products.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel has many years of experience advising clients with respect to Proposition 65 and other regulatory compliance issues. CK&E attorneys help clients stay out of legal crosshairs by working with them to ensure their products continue to meet all legal requirements, and helping them plan for foreseeable changes in the law.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Can Employers Ask, “So, What Did You Make?”

Posted by:

A new law in California is squarely aimed at reducing historical wage disparity, particularly between male and female employees.  On January 1, 2018, a new law will take effect in California to prohibit employers from seeking “salary history information, including compensation and benefits, about an applicant for employment.”  The new law, Section 432.3 of the Labor Code, also requires employers to provide the pay scale of the position to the applicant upon reasonable request.

But even under this new law, employers can still access salary history information under certain circumstances.  Employers may review salary history information that is publicly available under federal or state law, including information that is obtainable under the California Public Records Act or the federal Freedom of Information Act.  Employers may also consider and rely on salary history information in determining the salary for that applicant, if the “applicant voluntarily and without prompting discloses salary history information to a prospective employer….”  But, even when employers can rely on voluntarily disclosed salary information to set a particular salary, job applicants are still protected by California’s Equal Pay Act.  Any prior salary information about the applicant still cannot be used as the sole justification for “any disparity in compensation” for employees of different sexes, races, or ethnicities for “substantially similar work.”

It seems likely there will be a challenge to the constitutionality of the new restriction, most likely on free speech grounds.  Other states and municipalities have passed similar laws restricting employers from inquiring about salary history.  Philadelphia has a similar ordinance passed earlier this year to prohibit employers from asking an applicant about prior salaries and from relying on salary information unless that information was voluntarily disclosed by the applicant.  The Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia filed a lawsuit, challenging the ordinance on several grounds, including “chilling” the protected speech of employers under the First Amendment, and violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because of the severe penalties employers risk incurring.  While this case is still pending, the Chamber of Commerce raises questions of constitutionality that could apply as well to California’s new law.

Employment laws change constantly at federal, state and local levels.  In preparation for the new year, employers should review the documents they use in the hiring process, including job applications and new hire documents, and remove questions pertaining to salary history.  Employers should also instruct any employees who may be interviewing applicants not to ask about an applicant’s salary history.  And, for each open position, employers should ensure pay scales are readily available to disclose in response to an applicant’s request.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are experienced at helping employers navigate the shifting maze of laws and regulations they face, and resolving employment issues as they arise.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Counterfeits Can Take the Joy Out of the Holidays

Posted by:

As the holiday shopping season reaches peak fervor and consumers seek out the best deals available on hot products, gift-givers are more at risk of purchasing counterfeit products of all kinds.  Recently, news articles have warned of counterfeit Fingerlings – the latest “it” toy – along with fake versions of popular electronics, clothing, personal care products, and many other types of goods.  Government bureaus like the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol regularly release holiday bulletins advising of the escalating volume of phony products entering the United States (for example, https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/buyer-beware-counterfeit-goods-and-holiday-shopping-season).  Counterfeits are far from harmless.  Not only are these counterfeit goods generally inferior to authentic products in both quality and safety, fake products are fraud, theft, and infringements of valuable trademarks and other intellectual property.  Sales of counterfeit products can even be criminal.

As a consumer, what can you do to help ensure you’re receiving the genuine article?  The most obvious method is to avoid unfamiliar sources and to buy directly from the manufacturer’s website or from an authorized retailer whenever possible.  If buying on websites like Amazon and eBay (where products are often actually sold by unrelated third parties), it helps to make sure that the seller of the product is the manufacturer or Amazon itself, not an unknown third party.  Often times, third party sellers do not have the ability or desire to properly perform checks on the goods they are selling, and in many cases the third party sellers never actually possess the products – when they receive your order they simply forward the product from a warehouse they have never even seen.  While outlets like Amazon and eBay have some anti-counterfeiting policies and procedures, experience has shown that not every fake product will be screened out.  Consumers should also check the price of the goods to ensure that it is not abnormally low, and examine the packaging and presentation of the product as depicted on the website to help determine whether the product might be fake or foreign-labeled goods.  Compare the look of the product offered with the same product on the manufacturer’s website – if it’s different, that’s a red flag.  Consumers should also not hesitate to contact the manufacturer if they suspect that they have received counterfeit or foreign-labeled goods – in addition to being the primary victims, consumers are often the first line of defense in the fight against counterfeiting.

As a manufacturer or trademark owner, what can you do when you discover your products being sold in an unauthorized channel, with risk of counterfeiting?  Conkle, Kremer & Engel has extensive experience helping manufacturers and distributors to investigate and, when necessary, litigate counterfeit and other trademark- and intellectual property-infringement claims.  CK&E attorneys are well-versed in the careful initial steps that should promptly be taken when sales of illicit products are suspected.  If the seller is cooperative, litigation can often be avoided.  But if the seller is not, that is a strong indicator that the seller has been selling, and will continue to sell, infringing products unless stopped through litigation.  Whatever you choose to do, consult experienced counsel and decide on your course of action promptly – unreasonable delays can seriously harm your ability to protect your rights.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Sunscreen Ingredient Restrictions in Maui, Hawaii?

Posted by:

Sunscreen manufacturers and distributors should take note:  Maui County in the state of Hawaii could become the first county in the United States to ban the sale and use of sunscreen products containing oxybenzone and octinoxate, two active ingredients approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in sunscreens.

In November, a Maui Hawaii County Council committee introduced and recommended for approval a bill for an ordinance that would prohibit the sale and use of sunscreen containing the ingredients oxybenzone and octinoxate. These ingredients are commonly used in commercial chemical sunscreens as protection against ultraviolet (UV) light radiation.  The county-level move came after Senate Bill 1150 – introduced in 2017 by Hawaii Senator Will Espero to ban the use and application of sunscreens containing oxybenzone throughout the state of Hawaii – stalled at the end of the legislative session.

The FDA currently approves of only 16 active ingredients for use in over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreens, generally recognizing them as safe and effective.  Among the ingredients are oxybenzone and octinoxate, which are commonly found in commercial sunscreen products, including from major sunscreen brands such as L’Oreal, Neutrogena and Supergoop.  The European Union already imposes strict limits on the use of oxybenzone in sunscreen products as well as warning requirements.

The Maui County proposal was prompted by environmental concerns and intended to promote the health and welfare of Maui’s coral reefs and marine life. The bill’s supporters claim that oxybenzone and octinoxate have a significant impact on the marine environment, noting that both ingredients have been detected in the ocean surrounding Maui at levels that well exceed the toxicity range for coral reefs.  Opponents of the ban, on the other hand, contend that the ingredients are safe for use, as they have been approved for use by the FDA.

The proposal to ban sunscreen products containing oxybenzone and oxtinoxate, other than prescription products, is now before the full Maui County Council. If approved, manufacturers, retailers and distributors of sunscreen products containing oxybenzone and oxtinoxate would have a year to ensure that their products no longer contain the banned ingredients. Businesses or persons found in violation of the law would be subject to civil penalties and administrative enforcement procedures. As of now, the bill does not contain a private right of action to allow consumers to bring actions for violations.  If passed, Maui’s outright ban could still face enforcement and legal challenges – including state preemption and federal Commerce Clause challenges.

While this is a unique development, local efforts to protect against health and environmental concerns are nothing new, but they do not always remain confined to their original purpose.  For example, California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65, was originally passed to protect the state’s drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm.  However, Proposition 65 does not act to ban the use of any chemicals; instead, it imposes warning requirements prior to consumer exposure to certain chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm.  The 2012 listing of benzophenone to the state’s list of regulated chemicals has already caused many sunscreen manufacturers using octocrylene, another FDA-approved active ingredient that may contain small amounts of benzophenone, to reformulate or use a more purified form of the ingredient.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel has many years of experience representing clients in the beauty and skin care industry address challenging regulatory compliance issues.  CK&E attorneys help clients stay out of legal crosshairs by working with them to ensure their products continue to meet all legal requirements, and helping them plan for foreseeable changes in the law.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0
Page 4 of 17 «...23456...»