FTC’s National Ban of Non-Compete Agreements May Take Effect Soon

Posted by:

Does your business have non-compete agreements with its employees? The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may make it more difficult to protect your business from employees leaving for competitors and actively contesting your business.

The FTC approved a trade regulation rule banning employers from using non-compete contracts to prevent most workers from joining a competitor. Unless enjoined by one of at least three lawsuits pending against it, the new FTC rule will become effective on September 4, 2024. Many states, including California and other western states, have long-standing public policies against enforcing non-compete agreements that will continue in effect if they are stronger than the FTC’s rule.  But this is the first time in over 50 years that FTC officials have sought to regulate the issue on a national basis.

The new rule prohibits companies from enforcing existing non-compete agreements on anyone other than senior executives, classifying non-competes as “unfair methods of competition.” It also bans employers from imposing new non-compete agreements on any employees, including senior executives, going forward. (Banks, credit unions, and nonprofit healthcare employers are exempt from this ban.) Non-compete clauses are not affected by this Rule if entered into in connection with the bona fide sale of a business.

The practice of including non-compete clauses in employment agreements has grown significantly in recent years. (The FTC found that approximately one in five workers are subject to non-compete agreements.) They have been utilized to protect a business’s valuable intellectual property and trade secrets from disclosure to a competitor through its former employees who might be hired by the competitor. However, many states and labor organizations have accused employers of overuse and sought to outlaw the non-competes as unfair business methods that curtail competition or as an unreasonable restraint of trade.

One of the most prominent lawsuits attacking the new rule was filed in April 2024 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Chamber alleges in its complaint that the FTC does not have the authority to regulate non-compete clauses, stating, “The sheer economic and political significance of a nationwide non-compete ban demonstrates that this is a question for Congress to decide, rather than an agency.”

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys believe that appropriately drafted and enforceable non-compete provision may protect businesses and their property interests. If your business is considering including a non-compete clause in its employment or termination agreements, you will need to consider the potential impact of this Trade Regulation Rule on your plans. Conkle firm attorneys are familiar with this area of the law can help your business maximize the protection of its information and intellectual property, respond to cease and desist letters from competitors or, if necessary, engage in litigation of issues of misappropriation of trade secrets.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Conkle Firm Attorneys Attend Cosmoprof Bologna to Assist Clients

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys John Conkle and Kelly Peterson have returned to Cosmoprof Worldwide Bologna to continue the firm’s longstanding practice assisting the growth and protection of personal care products businesses in U.S. and international markets.  Last year, Cosmoprof Bologna had nearly 3,000 exhibitors and 250,000 visitors in exhibition space totaling more than 160,000 square meters.  For over 50 years, Cosmoprof has been the benchmark event for companies and professionals in all sectors of the cosmetics industry, from supply chain to branding, marketing, distribution and sale of finished products.

Cosmoprof’s B2B format is well suited to connect businesses all over the world, and CK&E attorneys are experienced with what businesses in this sector need to succeed. CK&E lawyers have more than 40 years of experience with the legal issues affecting all stages of growth of personal care products businesses, from startup through acquisition. Issues such as domestic and international brand protection, regulatory compliance, contractual relations with distributors and vendors, customer relations, employment matters, partnership issues, sales representative issues, and insurance can be vexing to a growing business without the guidance of lawyers who have “been there and seen that” for decades.

On the first day of Cosmoprof Bologna, John and Kelly have already begun engaging with clients and prospective clients to help them navigate toward international growth. If you are a vendor there and have not talked with them yet, you can use the email addresses on their attorney pages to reach out to them for a consultation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Who Owns Your Business? The Government – and Maybe Litigation Adversaries – Want to Know

Posted by:

UPDATE:  On March 1, 2024 Judge Liles C. Burke, a federal court judge in Alabama, effectively invalidated the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) by finding it unconstitutional: “The Corporate Transparency Act is unconstitutional because it cannot be justified as an exercise of Congress’ enumerated powers.”  2024-03-01 National Small Business United v Yellin, Case No 5.22-cv-1448-LCB  The decision will almost certainly be appealed, so expect further developments.  In the meantime while the federal CTA is not considered currently in effect, its state counterparts (such as the New York LLC Transparency Act) remain effective.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ORIGINAL POST:

As we usher in the new year, individuals aren’t the only ones making resolutions. Many business entities organized in the United States must also resolve to comply with the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), a pivotal component of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. This anti-money laundering law, enforced by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), aims to illuminate the ownership and control structures of entities operating within the U.S. But there are important exceptions and potential litigation risks to be aware of.

The Beneficial Ownership Interest Rule (BOI Rule) now mandates that most private business entities file a Beneficial Ownership Interest Report. The BOI Report provides personal information about individuals who own or control the entity. “Beneficial ownership” includes anyone who owns or controls 25% or more of the ownership interests, or who directly or indirectly exercises substantial control over a company. The net was cast widely to include almost any imaginable form of agreement that can grant control to someone, including equity, profit sharing agreements, voting trusts, convertible debt, stock options, joint ownership of an undivided interest, and ownership through subsidiaries. There are certain exceptions for minor children, intermediaries, agents, individuals acting solely as employees, creditors, and individuals whose only interest is through inheritance.

“Substantial control” includes individuals who serve as a senior officer of the entity (i.e., president, CEO, CFO, general counsel, or others who perform similar functions); majority or dominant minority directors; and anyone who directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the entity.

The CTA applies to “a corporation, LLC, or other similar entity that is either created by filing a document with a secretary of state or a similar office under the law of a State . . . or formed under the law of a foreign country and registered to do business in the United States. . . .” This includes Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), limited partnerships and business trusts. But it does not apply to sole proprietorships, general partnerships, or non-business trusts, because those entities are not created through a filing with a Secretary of State.

The CTA of course exempts public companies that file securities reports, but it also has a notable exemption for non-public “large operating companies” as well as some specialized entities like insurance companies, accounting firms, utilities, tax exempt entities, as well as inactive entities. “Large operating companies” that do not have to file a BOI Report are those which employ at least 20 full time employees, maintain a physical office in the U.S., and received at least $5 million in gross receipts for the last fiscal year.

The BOI Reports must include the entity’s name and any fictitious names, its address, its jurisdiction of formation, its taxpayer ID number, and elaborate identification of the beneficial owners: Full legal name, date of birth, residential address, and an identification number and digital copy (this may be a driver’s license, passport, or FinCEN ID). Entities created after January 1, 2024 must provide the same information about the company applicant who filed the paperwork to register the entity.

Entities in existence prior to January 1, 2024 must file their BOI Report by January 1, 2025. New entities registered between January 1, 2024, and December 31, 2024, must submit their BOI Report within 90 days of confirmation of formation. Entities formed on or after January 1, 2025 must submit their BOI Report within 30 days of confirmation of formation. Changes concerning beneficial ownership or corrections to previous BOI Reports must be filed within 30 days. The consequences of failure to file a BOI Report may be costly. A daily fine of $500 can be imposed for non-compliance, up to a maximum of $10,000. Individuals who submit false information in a BOI Report also may be subjected to criminal penalties.

BOI Reports are filed electronically with FinCEN, a bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury that collects information to address money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. FinCEN’s “Access Rule” generally limits disclosure of BOI Reports to Federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activity, and state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies with court authorization, certain foreign law enforcement authorities and financial institutions with customer due diligence requirements and regulators supervising them for compliance.

Interestingly, there is no indication yet whether litigants would be able to obtain copies of BOI Reports through discovery processes in litigation such as civil subpoenas and demands for document production. For example, if a litigant alleges in a pleading that an opponent is an “alter ego” of an entity subject to the BOI Rule, will that be sufficient to require disclosure in discovery of the entity’s BOI Report? Until more specific laws are enacted, at present it seems likely that general constitutional and statutory provisions of the individual states that concern confidentiality and privacy would control such disclosures.

Companies and individuals who may be subject to the Beneficial Ownership Interest Rule would be well advised to consult counsel who can address the nuances of their situation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Conkle Firm Attorneys Help Clients at Cosmoprof Asia 2023

Posted by:

After a three-year hiatus, Cosmoprof Asia 2023 returned to its hometown Hong Kong for its 26th annual show, and Conkle, Kremer & Engel was at the leading B2B beauty event in the Asia-Pacific region. CK&E attorneys John Conkle and Chelsea Bernard attended to assist clients, meet prospective clients and see all of the latest innovative products, services and technologies available in the beauty industry.

In between our attorneys assisting beauty industry participants with acquiring distribution partners and counseling brand protection and regulatory compliance, they visited each of the halls and attended educational seminars to discover the newest and most innovative beauty products from all around the world.

Based on the increase in attendance from 2019, it was clear that everyone was excited to be back. More than 2,400 exhibitors from 44 countries and regions showcased their cutting edge products and services to 60,000 attendees. The impressive show occupied three massive exhibition halls, which included cosmetics and toiletries with a special natural and organic showcase, as well as nail and accessories, hair and beauty salon and spa products and services.

This year, Cosmoprof Asia strongly focused on sustainability and its impact on beauty habits, highlighting the event’s dedication to fostering positive change within the beauty and cosmetic industry. Our attorneys noted the strong industry trend toward “greentech.” Greentech utilizes only stem cells from plants, minimizing the environmental impact as entire plants no longer need to be harvested, and produces extremely efficient active ingredients for cosmetic products. Not all surprisingly, the seminar noted that the clean beauty market is projected to grow and reach an approximate $15.3 billion by 2032.

Similarly, analysis of exhibitors’ products and key trends spotlighted epidermal growth factors (“EGF”) which are polypeptides that can be derived from plant cells and are said to signal cells to boost collagen and elastin production. One of the products highlighted that features EGF was Dermaesthetics’ “UV Shield: EGF FGF DNA Sun Protection.” CK&E attorneys enjoyed speaking with Lincoln Lee, Director of Global Operations at Dermaesthetics, about their innovative products and ways to strengthen their brand protection as they expand their global business.  As well, environment sustainability and organic chemistry come first for Innersense Organic Beauty, a long time client of CK&E that exhibited their hair care products at Cosmoprof Asia and met with interested parties non-stop. Their message is simple yet noteworthy, to provide “Clean chemistry, radical transparency and a commitment to the environment,” by using formulas made with non-GMO, minimally processed ingredients from nature, sustainable packaging made from 100% post-consumer recycled materials and annual donations of 1% of their sales to environmental causes.

As always, CK&E attorneys look forward to attending Cosmoprof and other industry events in the future, to continue to help our clients, meet future clients, and stay up to date on personal care and beauty trends and evolving business needs.  Our attorneys continue to pride themselves on keeping abreast of industry developments to assist our clients, from startups to mature businesses, to grow and protect their brands and businesses in domestic and international markets.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

California Invasion of Privacy Act Lawsuits Challenge Website Live Chats

Posted by:

Does your business use live chats to offer customer service support to your customers?  Throughout the past year, hundreds of nearly identical suits have been filed alleging that the live chat features on businesses’ websites may violate the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).  Most of the lawsuits have been filed by attorneys at the Newport Beach, California, firm called Pacific Trial Attorneys, but other firms have brought very similar lawsuits.

CIPA is a set of California penal statutes that are directed against unconsented wiretapping or recording of telephone communications. The CIPA complaints allege that some software vendors that facilitate customer service live chats are acting as third-party eavesdroppers or wiretappers who share sensitive customer information with entities such as Meta for purposes of targeted advertising. In order to fit their allegations of internet-based communications into the CIPA wiretapping and eavesdropping prohibitions protecting telephone communications, the lawsuits often allege that the plaintiffs accessed the defendant’s live chat through their smart phone’s web browser.

The Conkle firm attorneys believe the plaintiff law firms’ approach is a flawed legal theory that is an unwarranted attempt to extend the scope of the CIPA statute.  At present, no reported decisions have determined the merits of these types of claims, and it appears that most of the lawsuits are intended primarily to draw settlements from defendants wishing to avoid the expense and risk of defending themselves.

If your business has a web presence that involves a “chat” function, it may be prudent to take proactive measures to reduce the risk of having to defend a CIPA lawsuit.  Such measures include plain disclosures to live chat users about the involvement of a third-party software vendor, a method of documenting consent of the live chat user, and links to an appropriately-phrased privacy policy. Such prophylactic measures will not only help deter plaintiffs’ lawyers from targeting your business for CIPA violations but can also contribute to a transparent and trustworthy customer experience.

It is also important that you respond quickly and appropriately if you receive a warning letter or demand from a law firm claiming that your business is violating CIPA. A swift and appropriate response is an important part of your defense to such claims and may ward off a lawsuit that is otherwise almost sure to follow. Should you receive a demand letter alleging a CIPA violation based on the above-conduct, it is best to promptly contact experienced counsel for guidance and assistance. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are very familiar with this area of the law and can guide your business to improve website chat features to forestall such claims, respond to demand letters or, if necessary, defend CIPA litigation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

California Employers: Do You Know When Your Furlough is a Discharge?

Posted by:

To employers, it may seem like California regulates nearly everything about employment relations. Yet, surprisingly, statutes and courts in California never answered the question of when a temporary layoff becomes a “discharge” of furloughed employees. That is, until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did so recently in Hartstein v. Hyatt Corporation, 82 F.4th 825. The implications of this new ruling for California employers and employees are considerable.

Under the new ruling, any temporary layoff or furlough of employees without a specific return-to-work date within the employees’ regular pay period is considered a “discharge” under California Labor Code Section 201. That in turn triggers an immediate obligation for employers to pay all laid off employees all of the wages they have earned, including any pay owed for accrued vacation or Paid Time Off (“PTO”). Failure to pay in full all accrued wages, vacation and PTO when due runs the risk of substantial “waiting time penalties” under Labor Code Section 203. That can be a huge burden and risk for employers, as the Hartstein case demonstrated.

Hartstein arose during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many businesses were forced to greatly reduce or cease business operations without knowing when they would be able to reopen. In March 2020 Hyatt, like many employers, furloughed thousands of employees and was unable to provide any specific return-to-work date. Hyatt advised employees that vacation and PTO would not accrue during the temporary layoff, and Hyatt offered to pay any accrued vacation to employees upon request. A month later, in June 2020, Hyatt sent a letter advising employees that the temporary layoff had become permanent and employees would be paid their accrued vacation and PTO as required by Labor Code Section § 201 when a “discharge” occurs.

Hyatt employee Karen Hartstein filed a class-action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit, arguing that a “discharge” had occurred with the indefinite temporary layoff in March 2020, and not when employees were permanently laid off in June 2020. The key question was whether a temporary layoff, lacking a specified return date, constituted a “discharge” under Labor Code Section 201, which had no definition of “discharge.” No previous published case had addressed the issue.

The Ninth Circuit turned to the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) for guidance in its previously-issued Opinion and its Policies and Interpretations Manual. DLSE had indicated that, when an employee is laid off without a specified return date within the regular pay period, the employer must immediately give the employee a final paycheck that includes vested vacation pay. DLSE reasoned that this interpretation best aligned with the statute’s purpose of protecting workers and ensuring prompt payment of earned wages.

The Ninth Circuit characterized Hyatt’s actions as “understandable given the uncertainty during the early period of the pandemic,” but remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Hyatt’s failure to issue full final paychecks in March 2020 constituted a “willful” violation, which would expose Hyatt to waiting time penalties. That question remains open and will be watched closely by employment lawyers.

Hartstein v. Hyatt provides new guidance to California employers who may need to implement open-ended furloughs or temporary shutdowns. This decision has made clear that California employers who furlough or temporarily lay off employees without specifying a return-to-work date within the same pay period should immediately issue final paychecks that include each employee’s vested and unused vacation or PTO.

Hartstein v. Hyatt demonstrates again that employment law in California is constantly evolving, and outcomes may not be as predictable as employers would hope. California employers facing such issues are well-advised to consult with qualified employment counsel to stay up-to-date on these and other important employment issues. Conkle, Kremer & Engel’s attorneys can help advise employers in navigating these complex and evolving issues.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Are You Ready for the New California Employment Privacy Regulations?

Posted by:

 

You may recall that the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) amendments (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) went into effect January 1, 2023, but enforcement was delayed until March 29, 2024. Employers with the requisite contacts with California consumers (which is defined in an extremely broad manner) will be required to provide employees with extensive privacy notices, respond to requests to exercise new data rights, limit uses and disclosures of HR data, and obtain contractual commitments from third-party recipients of personal information.

The CPRA amendments apply to any business with worldwide gross annual revenue of $25 million or more that collects personal information from any California consumer, which includes a service provider, an employee, a job applicant or an investor, for example.  All entities that share common branding will be subject to the CPRA requirements if even one of those entities meet the requisite standards.

Generally, when the employer is subject to CPRA, its employees (and service providers, job applicants, investors, etc.) have six data rights:
1. The Right to Delete
2. The Right to Correct
3. The Right to Know
4. The Right to Restrict the Use of Sensitive Personal Information
5. The Right to Opt-Out of the Sale or Sharing of their Personal Information
6. The Right to Not Be Retaliated for Exercising these Rights

Each of these general rights are subject to detailed requirements and exceptions that must be carefully considered and addressed by employers, who must give appropriate notification to employees.  Employers’ data subject to the CPRA includes only information collected on or after January 1, 2022.  Given the suspended enforcement, it is presently uncertain whether employers will be expected to be in compliance through a “look back” period that could apply as early as the enactment date of January 1, 2023, or whether employers will be given a pass on compliance until the enforcement stay expires on March 29, 2024. In any event, employers who may be subject to the amended CPRA would be well advised to start their compliance efforts as soon as possible, and should contact qualified counsel to guide their efforts.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Start at the End: Planning for Termination of Sales Representative Relationships

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney Evan Pitchford recently published Start at the End: Planning for Termination of the Principal-Representative Relationship in the April 2023 edition of Agency Sales, the nationwide publication of the Manufacturers & Agents National Association (MANA).  Although no one likes to think about the potential end of a business relationship just when they finally succeeded in getting it off the ground, it is wise for sales representatives and principals alike to do just that.

Thoughtful preparation for the eventual termination of the sales representatives’ relationship will greatly improve the relationship throughout its existence, by making clear the terms that will apply as it comes to an end.  To understand their ongoing duties to each other, both parties should clearly understand the consequences of a termination under the various circumstances that may apply, such as a change by the principal to direct sales, contractual breaches, or just dissatisfaction of either side.  Specialized state statutes directed to sales representative contracts sometimes limit some of the termination provisions, but such statutes typically allow the parties to establish most or all of the terms for themselves.  It is definitely not wise for either side to just assume an applicable state statute will define what happens upon termination.

There are a great many options for termination provisions, including absolute cutoffs upon termination (which may be subject to “procuring cause” post-termination sales commission claims in some states), to timed durations of sales commission tails based on when the commission is considered earned, to phased termination extending commission tale periods based on longevity or achievement.  The only limits to the terms that can be agreed upon are the requirements of each state’s specialized sales commission statutes and the imagination and negotiating leverage of the parties.  Parties considering sales commission agreements are well-advised to seek the counsel of attorneys who are very familiar with sales representatives laws and practices, such as  attorneys at the Conkle firm.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Returns to Cosmoprof Bologna

Posted by:

Conkle Kremer & Engel returned to attend Cosmoprof Worldwide Bologna for 2023.  Beauty’s biggest trade show was back in full swing and CK&E attorneys Mark Kremer and Amanda Washton attended to help clients, meet new clients, and see all of the latest innovations.

Amanda Washton at Cosmoprof Bologna 2023

It was easy to see why Cosmoprof Worldwide Bologna is considered to be the leading worldwide event for the professional beauty sector. In 2023, over 2,984 exhibiting companies from more than 64 countries participated.  More than 250,000 visitors from 153 countries chose to attend Cosmoprof Worldwide Bologna as an essential time for their business.  CK&E attorneys were based at the California Trade Alliance’s California Pavilion, at which CK&E sponsored a meeting room for advice to be given and deals to be made.  CK&E also provided food and wine to refresh the happy exhibitors.  The personal care products industry in California is so large and established that California is still the only state in the U.S. to sponsor its own pavilion, nestled among the many country pavilions (including the U.S. Pavilion).

When not helping clients in their booths or at the meeting room, CK&E attorneys enjoyed visiting the specialty Cosmoprof sections in the COSMO Perfumery & Cosmetics and the COSMO Hair, Nail, and Beauty Salon sections of the show.  They met manufacturers and distributors (large and small), beauty consultants and professionals throughout the world, to add to the firm’s growing network of beauty industry contacts.

Makeup and skincare products that focused on sustainability and inclusivity were highlighted at the show.  Owing to consumers’ increasing environmental consciousness, use of biodegradable packaging represented a clear trend.  Inclusivity was everywhere with a clear influx of gender-neutral lines as well as representation of products specifically designed for all races, ethnicities and ages.  In fact, the Cosmo Trends portion of the show presented products specifically focused on “menopause wellness.”  It is clear that the cosmetics and beauty industry is leading the way in approaching and “celebrating otherness,” which was the theme of the CosmoTrends exhibit at the show.Moroccanoil Show at Cosmoprof Bologna 2023

CK&E attorneys look forward to attending Cosmoprof and other industry events in the future, to continue to help our clients, meet future clients, and stay up to date on personal care and beauty trends and evolving business needs.  Our attorneys continue to pride themselves on keeping abreast of industry developments to help our clients, from startups to mature businesses, to grow and protect their brands and businesses in domestic and international markets.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

If Your Cosmetics Use Fragrance or Flavor, this New California Legislation May Affect You

Posted by:

California cemented its status as the nation’s leader of cosmetics legislation when it passed the Cosmetic, Fragrance and Flavor Ingredient Right to Know Act of 2020 (“CFFIRKA”). Effective January 1, 2022, California’s newest cosmetic reporting law requires cosmetic companies to publicly disclose all fragrance and flavor ingredients in their products that are found on one of 22 “designated lists”. CFFIRKA supplements the state’s Safe Cosmetics Act (SCA), which for more than a decade has required companies to report to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Safe Cosmetics Program whether any of their cosmetic products contain chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Now, the reporting requirements extend to fragrances and flavor ingredients that may pose health hazards.

Many cosmetic products contain fragrances or ingredients that give products flavor. In enacting CFFIRKA – a first-of-its-kind consumer “right-to-know law”, the state was concerned that some fragrance and flavor ingredients may have negative health effects, especially to those who are frequently exposed, such as salon workers. Thus, the new law is intended to provide the public with knowledge about the use of such fragrances and flavor ingredients in both retail and professional-use cosmetics, so consumers and workers can determine whether and how to mitigate their exposure.

Each entity whose name appears on the label of a cosmetic product must comply with CFFIRKA, which means companies such as distributors and importers may also have reporting obligations. CFFIRKA requires disclosure if a cosmetic product sold in California contains fragrance and/or flavor ingredients included on one or more of the 22 designated lists identified in California Health and Safety Code Section 111792.6. Among others, the lists include those chemicals on California’s Proposition 65 list as well as chemicals classified by other federal and state agencies and international bodies. The ingredients on the 22 designated lists are subject to change as each list is revised, requiring companies to pay special attention to such changes. All cosmetic products with reportable ingredients sold in California after January 1, 2022, regardless of date of manufacture, must be reported under this mandate. However, there is no requirement under CFFIRKA to make changes to product labels.

Additionally, cosmetic companies must disclose specific “fragrance allergens” if the allergens are present at or above 0.01 percent (100 parts per million) in rinse-off cosmetic products, or at or above 0.001 percent (10 parts per million) in leave-on cosmetics products. The subset of CFFIRKA reportable ingredients called “fragrance allergens” have distinct reporting requirements, and must be reported regardless of their intended purpose in the product (i.e. they must be reported even if they are not used to impart scent or counteract odor). In addition to disclosing the reportable fragrance, flavor, or allergen ingredients, businesses must also disclose each ingredient’s Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS) number, the Universal Product Code (UPC) of the cosmetic product that includes the ingredient, and whether the cosmetic product is intended for professional or retail cosmetic use.

Information reported by companies under CFFIRKA (as well as under the SCA) is made publicly available through the CDPH’s Safe Cosmetics Database, which is available at https://cscpsearch.cdph.ca.gov/search/publicsearch. To date, more than 90,000 cosmetic products have been reported to the CDPH.

Conkle Kremer & Engel attorneys stay current on regulatory and legal developments that affect the cosmetics business.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0
Page 1 of 21 12345...»