WARNING: Are Your Products and Websites Ready for the New Prop 65 Requirements?

Posted by:

California’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued new Proposition 65 Warning Regulations that will go into effect on August 30, 2018. It is important for companies to understand the changed regulations and be proactive in adapting their product labels and even internet marketing to adapt to the new regulations.  The coming changes have introduced a variety of new concepts, imposing additional burdens on businesses selling their products in California, and making it easier for plaintiff Prop 65 attorneys and groups to bring costly private enforcement actions.

The OEHHA has made significant changes to the safe-harbor language requirements that govern the language, text, and format of such warnings. The new regulations introduce the concept of a “warning symbol,” which must be used on consumer products, though not on food products. The “warning symbol” must be printed in a size no smaller than the height of the word “WARNING,” and should be in black and yellow, but can be in black and white if the sign, label, or shelf tag for the product is not printed using the color yellow.

Warnings must now also specifically state at least one listed chemical found in the product and include a link to OEHHA’s new website www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.  These are examples of the new format for more specific warnings:

  • For exposure to carcinogens: “ WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including [name of one or more chemicals], which is [are] known to the State of California to cause cancer. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
  • For exposure to reproductive toxins: “ WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including [name of one or more chemicals], which is [are] known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
  • For exposure to both carcinogens and reproductive toxins: “ WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including [name of one or more listed chemicals], which is [are] known to the State of California to cause cancer, and [name of one or more chemicals], which is [are] known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”

Certain special categories of products, such as food and alcoholic beverages, have a specialized URL that must be used. For example, warnings on food products must display the URL www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/food.

Recognizing that many consumer products have limited space “on-product” to fit the long-form warnings, the OEHHA has enacted new regulations allowing abbreviated “on-product” warnings. This short warning is permissible only if printed on the immediate container, box or wrapper of the consumer product. An example of the required format for the abbreviated warnings is:

  • WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov

The new regulations also specifically address internet sales for the first time. Warnings must be provided with a clearly marked hyperlink on the product display page, or otherwise prominently displayed to the purchaser before completion of the transaction.  It will not be sufficient if the product sold on the internet bears the required label, but the internet point of purchase listing does not.

The particular requirements for each specific product can vary, so manufacturers and resellers are well-advised to seek qualified counsel to review their situation before committing to potentially costly label and website changes that may not comply with the new requirements.  Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay up to date on important regulatory developments affecting their clients in the manufacturing and resale industries, and are ready to help clients navigate the changing regulatory landscape in California and elsewhere.

Although the new regulations take effect August 30, 2018, and the new warning labels are required for products manufactured after that date, companies can begin using the changed labels now. It is definitely not advisable to wait until August 2018 to begin making the required changes.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Relationships Between Producers, Wholesalers, and Retailers: Beer Distribution and Franchise Laws in California (Part 2)

Posted by:

In a recent blog post, we discussed beer self-distribution rules in California.  While the self-distribution laws in California are generally quite accommodating, and self-distribution works for a start-up craft brewery with limited funds, on a practical level it can only serve a relatively small geographical area.  As a brand increases in local popularity and the beer producer wants to expand its footprint and accelerate its competition with brands and beers outside its home region, usually the producer will choose to enter into a distribution agreement with an established third-party wholesaler.  When a beer producer chooses to contract with a distributor, then it is important to be aware of the applicable beer franchise laws (which also vary from state to state).  Beer franchise laws control the relationship between the brewer and the wholesaler and will generally trump contract terms that do not comport with such laws.

Beer franchise laws stem from a decades-old period when relatively few national-level breweries (like Budweiser and Miller) were able to exert significant power over the beer distribution industry, which at the time was chiefly comprised of numerous small mom-and-pop outlets.  As an example, the macrobreweries would impose stringent requirements for their distributors that necessitated significant investment (such as construction and maintenance of a sophisticated refrigerated warehouse), but there was nothing to protect the distributor when the macrobreweries decided to switch to a competitor, leaving the distributors with little recourse to recoup their investment.  To protect the distributors from this predicament, strong state franchise laws were enacted that made it difficult for the breweries to terminate contracts with distributors.

At their most draconian, beer franchise laws can marry a brewer to a distributor even if the brewer only sends a small initial amount of beer to the distributor for resale without any written agreement whatsoever.  In some cases distributors can even have the power to transfer the distribution rights to successors-in-interest without the brewer’s consent.  In many states, a brewer can only cancel a distribution contract for “good cause,” which may not include failure to reach sales quotas.  Further, many states require a brewer, in order to break a distribution contract, to pay the wholesaler Fair Market Value (“FMV”) for the lost business.  Of course, these rules have shifted a significant share of power to the distributors.

As the franchise laws weren’t enacted with the microbrewing phenomenon in mind, they can make distribution difficult for craft brewers that don’t have the clout of a national macrobrew and who don’t impose stringent requirements on their distributors.  In certain situations, a small brand may feel that a distributor is paying attention to other more established brands and that it is not getting the benefit of its bargain with the distributor.  However, many beer franchise laws have been softened over the past several years, allowing for more competition in the wholesale market and giving fledgling breweries more choice and control over the terms of their third-party distribution.  For example, some states exempt breweries that produce less than certain annual volumes from the franchise laws.  Of course, exemptions like this mean that brewers need to be conscious of their plans to grow and potentially exceed those volume limitations, and consider how it will affect their distribution agreements.

California’s beer franchise laws are some of the most accommodating in the country, because California allows the distribution agreement itself to control most of the important terms and dealings between the brewer and the wholesaler.  In California, a brewer must enter into exclusive written territorial agreements with distributors that are filed with the ABC (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25000.5).  California’s franchise laws do not restrict brewers to only “good cause” terminations (though the distributors themselves may very well fight for some type of good-cause requirement in contract negotiations).  Further, a brewer can terminate a distribution agreement if the wholesaler fails to meet a “commercially reasonable” sales goal or quota (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25000.7), and many beer distribution agreements call for the distributor itself to come up with an annual business plan that establishes sales goals based on certain data.  Except in certain situations, a brewer does not need to pay FMV to terminate the relationship (though again, a distributor may insist on a termination payment as a contract term).  While a brewer is not automatically bound by contract to a purchaser or transferee of its distributor, the brewer cannot unreasonably withhold consent or deny approval of such a transfer without incurring certain charges (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25000.9).

In California, the parties must be attuned to several important issues in creating the agreement, such as territory, term, change in ownership and transfer rights, termination rights, terms of sale, commercially reasonable sales goals, post-termination provisions, intellectual property licensing and advertising issues, dispute resolution, and other rights and duties of the parties.  Such contract terms are just as important for a brewer as finding a distribution team that is the right “fit” for a growing brand.

Overall, it is no surprise that the states with the most friendly self-distribution and franchise laws are the states with the most active and diverse beer business communities.  For example, California now has around 900 active breweries, far more than any other state, adding over 500 breweries in the last two years alone.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel has experience representing both breweries and distributors.  If you are launching a brewery in California, looking to expand your brand’s sales through self-distribution or with a third-party distributor, or have found yourself in a distribution-related dispute, contact Conkle, Kremer & Engel for assistance with those and other beer industry-related issues.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

California Employers’ Risks of PAGA Exposure

Posted by:

If you’re a California employer, you may have heard people refer to “PAGA” and wondered what it’s all about.  PAGA is a legal device that employees can use to address Labor Code violations in a novel way, in which employee representatives are allowed to act as if they are government enforcement agents.

The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (CLWDA) has authority to collect civil penalties against employers for Labor Code violations.  Seems simple enough.  But in an effort to relieve an agency with limited resources of the nearly impossible task of pursuing every possible Labor Code violation committed by employers, the California legislature passed the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).  PAGA grants aggrieved employees the right to bring a civil action and pursue civil penalties against their employers for Labor Code violations, acting on behalf of the State of California as if they were the CLWDA.  If the aggrieved employees prevail against the employer, the employees can collect 25% of the fines that the state of California would have collected if it had brought the action.

Penalties available for Labor Code violations can be steep – for some violations, the state of California can recover fines of $100 for an initial violation to $200 for subsequent violations, per aggrieved employee, per pay period.  These penalties can add up to serious money, especially if the aggrieved employee was with the company for some time.  But what makes PAGA particularly dangerous for employers is the ability of employees to bring a representative action (similar to a class action), in which they can pursue these penalties for violations of the Labor Code on behalf of not only themselves, but also all others similarly situated.  Under this scheme, an aggrieved employee can bring an action to pursue penalties on behalf of an entire class of current and former employees, thereby multiplying the penalties for which an employer can be on the hook and ballooning the risk of exposure.  That risk is further amplified because PAGA also permits plaintiff employment attorneys to recover their fees if their claim is successful.

There is an upward trend in use of PAGA against California employers.  A July 2017 California Supreme Court decision, Williams v. Superior Court, exacerbated the problem for employers:  The California Supreme Court decided that plaintiff employment attorneys can obtain from employer defendants the names and contact information of potentially affected current and former employees throughout the entire state of California.  This means the PAGA plaintiffs can initiate an action and then pursue discovery of all possible affected employees and former employees throughout California, which can greatly expand the pool of potential claimants and ratchet up the exposure risk for employers.

Employers in California need to be attuned to Labor Code requirements and careful in their manner of dealing with employees, so that they avoid exposure to PAGA liability to the extent possible.  Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are familiar with the latest developments in employment liability and able to assist employers avoid trouble before it starts, or respond and defend themselves if problems have arisen.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Producer, Wholesaler and Retailer Relationships: Beer Distribution and Franchise Laws in California (Part 1)

Posted by:

For breweries and beer suppliers of any size, distribution is a significant issue, from the initial determination of whether to self-distribute or obtain third-party distribution to the decision to terminate a wholesaler.  As the beer industry is one of the most highly regulated in the United States and the laws on distribution procedures vary from state to state, there are many details and pitfalls that all parties engaged in beer distribution should be aware of when contemplating and doing business.  Two such sets of laws relate to self-distribution and what are called beer franchise laws (somewhat similar to but generally distinct from laws for franchises like McDonald’s restaurants or 7-Eleven convenience stores).  This blog entry will address the basics of brewery self-distribution in California, while a following entry will address California beer franchise laws.  (Future entries will discuss such issues in other jurisdictions and inter-jurisdictional issues.)

First, any discussion of beer distribution in the United States must begin with the repeal of prohibition and the states’ implementation of the “three-tier” system, which was discussed in a previous post.  The three-tier system generally requires beer producers to sell to wholesalers who in turn sell to retailers (comprised of both on-sale establishments like pubs and off-sale establishments like bottle shops).  The chief purpose of this layered approach is to limit beer producers’ control over and promotion of the retail sale of their products.  While this structure has its roots in the temperance movement, the three-tier system has had the effect in recent decades of allowing smaller craft breweries to flourish due to its inherent checks on monopolization.  However, as the number of beer brands proliferates, wholesalers and retailers cannot realistically be expected to carry all such brands, and self-distribution for many brands is the only effective way to bring product to market.

Fortunately, within the three-tier system, the states are permitted their own sets of rules.  While many states require the manufacturer, the wholesale, and the retailer to be completely independent of one another with no common ownership (and therefore permit no self-distribution), other states blur the three-tier system by allowing for retailers to buy beer directly from manufacturers, and some states allow for a beer manufacturer to own its own legally-distinct distribution company.  About half of states currently set an upper threshold on self-distribution (i.e. up to a certain annual barrel production level), with a smaller number allowing self-distribution regardless of capacity.

California is currently one of the more generous self-distribution states, allowing licensed California retailers to purchase alcoholic beverages for resale from licensed California beer wholesalers or manufacturers regardless of the production level.  (See, e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 23357, 23402, 23388.)  The California rules also permit the brewer (with the appropriate licenses and permits) to sell packaged beer from the brewery premises (including growler fills), to operate taprooms and brewpubs (with certain production requirements), and/or to sell at farmers markets (again, with several restrictions).  While these rules have their nuances, they allow breweries in California to establish their brand(s) and get their business off the ground without having to rely on third-party involvement.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys have experience representing both breweries and distributors.  If you are launching a brewery in California, looking to expand your brand’s sales through self-distribution or with a third-party distributor, or in a distribution-related dispute, contact Conkle, Kremer & Engel for assistance with those and other beer industry-related issues.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Attends Cosmoprof North America’s Exhibition in Las Vegas

Posted by:

On July 9, 2017, the attorneys of Conkle, Kremer & Engel attended Cosmoprof North America’s annual exhibition in Las Vegas, both to assist clients and to observe first-hand the latest trends in the beauty and personal care industry.  Tens of thousands of professionals attended the three-day exhibition, which featured over 1,150 exhibitors from 38 countries. CK&E attorneys attend to connect with clients and others in the cosmetics, personal care, packaging, labeling and professional beauty markets, to help clients secure distribution agreements, and to learn about the newest industry innovations.

This year, brands dedicated to “green” products were showcased as consumers continue to be interested in eco-friendly beauty and technology.  Skincare brands also made a strong showing as consumers have been increasingly interested in anti-aging and other preventative products and technologies.  Facial mask and dedicated ethnic products made a particularly strong showing this year.  Globalization of the beauty market is readily apparent – Euromonitor International has an excellent detailed analysis of recent international growth in the beauty and personal care industry on a global scale:  http://blog.euromonitor.com/2017/05/reimagining-growth-in-the-global-beauty-industry.html

CK&E’s attorneys pride themselves on effectively and efficiently assisting clients of all sizes with brand protection and growth and regulatory compliance, both domestically and internationally.  CK&E is an active member of the Professional Beauty Association, and other important industry trade organizations.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Featured Panel of 2017 PCPC Legal & Regulatory Conference

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney H. Kim Sim was on the featured panel of this year’s Legal & Regulatory Conference sponsored by the Personal Care Product Council.  The featured panel, called “California: The Wild, Wild West,” explored the changes and challenges of the new business landscape in California, which boasts an economy that would place it sixth among the world’s nations.  The panel discussion was held on May 10, 2017 at Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines in San Diego, California.   John Conkle, the CK&E attorney originally scheduled to speak on this panel, was unable to appear due to a federal court trial conflict.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

What are “Natural” Products Anyway?

Posted by:

Personal care products that claim to be “natural”, “all natural” or “100% natural” continue to draw scrutiny from consumer advocates and regulatory agencies such as the FTC. Perhaps surprisingly, there still is no clear definition of the word “natural” for personal care products.  It’s no small concern, as consumers and manufacturers can have different expectations of what “natural” means, which can lead to confusion and accusations of false or misleading advertising.

Despite the uncertainty, “natural” product claims matter to consumers. According to a 2015 Nielsen report, 53% of consumers surveyed said that an “all-natural” description was moderately or very important to their purchasing decision. The worldwide natural products industry is estimated at $33 billion – and it’s growing.  “Naturally,” companies want to capitalize on this trend.

But what exactly is a “natural” product? Is it plant-derived? Is it made from ingredients found in nature?  Is it free of preservatives? Is it made without synthetic ingredients?  There are no FDA regulations regarding use of the word natural. However, the FDA has issued non-binding guidance that states it will not contest food products labeled as “natural” if the product does not contain added color, artificial flavors or synthetic substances. Though this provides a limited understanding of the term “natural”, the guidance is as to food, pertains only to FDA enforcement and is not a legal requirement.

In a recent complaint filed with FTC, California Naturel’s sunscreen was alleged to be not “all natural”, as it claimed, because 8% of it was Dimethicone, a synthetic ingredient. Following the FTC complaint, California Naturel put a disclaimer on its website, which was later ruled as ineffective in a 2016 FTC decision.

Starting in 2015, the Honest Company also found itself in court for false advertising in regard to their “natural” products.  Though the Honest Company markets its products as “natural”, the products contain a number of synthetic ingredients. Consumers argued that their understanding of “natural” was a product free of synthetic or artificial ingredients, and the court held that the Honest Company’s  “natural” claims for its products is misleading.

The current trend is that the surest way to avoid complaints when products are advertised as “natural” or “100% natural” is to make certain they are free of synthetic ingredients.  Next to that, disclosure of what you mean by “natural” as used on your product can be an important measure to avoid consumer confusion.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys help their clients navigate these tricky currents by staying up to date on developments affecting the personal care products industry.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

CK&E Sponsors 2016 PCPC Emerging Issues Conference

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel is proud to once again sponsor the Personal Care Products Council Emerging Issues Conference on November 10, 2016 at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Marina Del Rey, California.

John Conkle will attend the conference on behalf of CK&E to address current legal trends and developments in the cosmetic and personal care products industry.  This annual event by the PCPC – the leading national trade association for the cosmetic and personal care products industry – is a must-attend for beauty companies across the country, with its unique focus on the many challenges that are on the horizon for the beauty industry.  The presentation this year will include a particularly timely focus on international trade issues affecting the cosmetics industry, including appearances by industry representatives from Canada and Mexico.

This year’s conference is particularly topical panel discussion entitled “2016 Elections: What happened and what it means for you!”   The panel included Dan Schnur, a leading political strategist and Director of Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at University of Southern California, which runs the USC-Los Angeles Times Daybreak Poll that was one of the few polls to correctly predict Donald Trump’s election.  In comments during their PCPC presentation, the panel noted that if President Trump follows through with pledges such as environmental regulation rollbacks, it is likely that California will respond by enacting its own additional rules and regulations.

2016-11-10-pcpc-mike-thompson-dan-schnur-darius-anderson-edited

Michael Thompson, Senior VP, PCPC Government Affairs; Dan Schnur Director, Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics, USC; Darius Anderson, CEO, Platinum Advisors

CK&E is pleased to once again participate in this annual event and to offer its experience and insight into legal issues affecting the industry to the PCPC and its members.

2016-emerging-issues-conference-cke-sponsor

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

At Critical Juncture, CK&E Defeats Consumer Class Action Against Charity

Posted by:

On October 13, 2016 Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys Eric S. Engel and Zachary Page successfully defended a charitable organization faced with an attempted consumer class action.  In Delgado v. Cars 4 Causes, a charity that accepted donations of vehicles was charged with fraud, false advertising, unfair competition and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).  Plaintiff Delgado had donated a boat and trailer to Cars 4 Causes, and later complained that Cars 4 Causes did not adequately disclose its fees before providing a portion of the net proceeds from sale of the donation to Delgado’s designated third party charity.

In a class action, a critical juncture is reached when the plaintiff files a motion to ask the court to certify a class.  Without a class certification, the action is just an individual claim, often with little value on its own.  In Delgado v. Cars 4 Causes, CK&E was able to present compelling evidence and legal arguments that the claims of the prospective class members did not have sufficient common issues of fact, and that the proposed class members were not sufficiently ascertainable, to permit class certification.  When class certification is denied, courts often allow the plaintiff a second or third chance to modify his class definition or otherwise amend his claims in order to meet the class certification requirements.  But in Delgado v. Cars 4 Causes, CK&E was able to present such solid evidence and legal argument that the court was convinced of the futility of any such additional chances for the plaintiff.  As a result, the court denied Delgado’s motion for class certification
“with prejudice.”  This permanent denial of class certification ended the plaintiff’s effort to pursue a class action against Cars 4 Causes.

CK&E attorneys have substantial experience and success in defending class actions ranging from consumer unfair competition, false advertising and CLRA claims, to employment wage and hour claims.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

California ARB’s Third Product Survey Starts July 1, 2016

Posted by:

The California Air Resources Board’s ambitious, three-year long data collection effort is rounding third and heading for home.  The mandatory reporting period for the third and final year of the Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (now called “Data Reporting for the Consumer Products Program”) will begin July 1, 2016 and end November 1, 2016.

Businesses will once again be required to report detailed product ingredient information and annual sales for products sold in California during 2015, as they were required to do for chemically formulated consumer and commercial products sold or supplied for use in California during the 2013 and 2014 calendar years.  ARB requires the ingredient and sales information to be reported through its online Consumer Products Reporting Tool.  Veterans of the two prior Surveys may notice that ARB no longer refers to the mandatory reports as “Surveys,” apparently because that name suggested to some that the reports were somehow optional.  They are not optional.  Non-compliance will draw letters from ARB and persistent non-compliance will result in referral to ARB’s Enforcement Division.

Reports must be filed by each “responsible party” listed on the label of a consumer or commercial product that was sold or supplied for use in California during the calendar year, if the product falls into one of the many categories listed for 2015.  The general categories of consumer products that are subject to reporting are personal care products, adhesives, sealants and related products, household and institutional products, pesticide products, solvent and thinning-related products, vehicle and marine vessel aftermarket products, and aerosol coating products.  But for the 2015 Report, ARB has exempted 232 categories of consumer products due to its assessment that the products contain low or no volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions – less than 0.05 tons per day of emissions.  A number of beauty products, including facial cleansers and soaps, nail glues and gel nail polishes, are now exempt from reporting for 2015, even though they were required to be reported for 2013 and 2014 Surveys.  ARB’s full list of exempt consumer products is available here.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys assist clients with achieving compliance with California’s many regulatory requirements, including the Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, so that clients can focus on expanding their businesses in valuable markets.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0
Page 4 of 10 «...23456...»