Those of us who live in Philadelphia are endlessly fond of rocking on our porches and reminiscing about the halcyon baseball season of 2008, when our beloved Phillies won the World Series. These days, we are resigned to a...more
California bill to require warning labels on sugary drinks dies in committee.
On April 29, a bill that would have required warning labels on sugary soft drinks failed to move forward in the California legislature. The...more
Lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies generally center on product-liability claims. A new trend in pharma cases, however, is to include a different kind of claim: a claim for unfair trade practices....more
On April 28, 2015, the Environmental Law Foundation (“ELF”) filed a petition in the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., et...more
Judge rejects consumer claim concerning evaporated cane juice -
On March 12, a US district judge in the Northern District of Illinois dismissed with prejudice a consumer lawsuit against the manufacturer of Healthy Grains...more
This is from the non-Dechert side of the blog.
We do not write too often about tobacco decisions. While FDA has added a Center for Tobacco Products and there are still lots of cases against tobacco manufacturers, we...more
For nearly three decades, California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as “Proposition 65," has, under specified conditions, required businesses that sell or distribute products in...more
This just in – after many years of litigation, the post April 10, 2002 warnings on Accutane were determined to be adequate as a matter of law by the New Jersey judge tasked with overseeing this mass tort....more
In a much anticipated decision, a California Court of Appeal has upheld a trial court ruling for the defense, finding that trace levels of lead in packaged fruits, vegetables and fruit juice products require no Proposition 65...more
In a rare published decision concerning California’s expansive Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as “Prop 65,” the California Court of Appeal on March 17, 2015, dealt companies a victory in...more
Auburn Courthouse Prop 65Recent attempts to modify California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Proposition 65, have been the work of the California Legislature. (See A Sane Tweak To Proposition 65 and...more
If you’ve been to California recently, you likely returned with a heightened awareness of the dangers present in the products you consume and use on a daily basis. That is because in California, Proposition 65 requires...more
A little like one of those peanut-shaped asteroids, today’s post cobbles together a couple of recent developments that, other than having relevance to the FDA, do not have all that much in common....more
In This Issue:
Judgments; Legislation; and Reports.
- Excerpt from Judgments:
Australia. Federal Court -
5 March 2015 - Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v Kaizen Hospitals (Essendon) Pty Ltd...more
Legislation was introduced in the California Assembly last week to provide much-needed relief from frivolous Proposition 65 claims and avoid “over-warning” the public where scientific evidence shows that products or premises...more
An opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on February 20, 2015 held that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) preempted claims that Lexapro’s U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)...more
This regular publication by DLA Piper lawyers focuses on helping clients navigate the ever-changing business, legal and regulatory landscape.
- Federal judge declines to dismiss olive oil consumer class actions. A US...more
California’s Proposition 65 warning requirements (Health & Safety Code Sections 25249.6 et seq.) have long been a major concern for businesses that want their products offered for sale in the state’s large marketplace....more
On January 12, 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed important new regulations that would repeal and replace the existing Article 6 regulations regarding the all-important "clear and...more
On January 20, 2015, the U.S Supreme Court denied cert in Teva v. Superior Court of California, Orange County, refusing to review a California state court ruling allowing patients to proceed with claims that Teva...more
California’s “Proposition 65” warning requirements (Health & Safety Code Sections 25249.6 et seq.) have long been a major concern for businesses that want their products offered for sale in the State’s large marketplace....more
As this space has discussed, Proposition 65 has been the subject of attempts by the California Legislature to reform the enforcement of the law.
Recently, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment...more
Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation, which has a long history as a Proposition 65 plaintiff, filed a writ petition earlier this week seeking to challenge and rescind the “safe harbor” level for lead under Proposition 65. ...more
On January 12, 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed the first significant revisions to Proposition 65’s warning requirements since the 1980s. The updated regulations seek to...more
On January 12, 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) released the long anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes changes to the warning requirements under Proposition...more
Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*
Back to Top