Retail and Consumer Products Law Roundup - June 2019

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

In This Issue:
  • Retail Spotlight for FDA Compliance: Jeremy Lutsky
  • Will Single-Use Products and Packaging Be a Thing of the Past in California?
  • Just Passed: Nevada to Allow Consumers to Opt Out of Data Sales by October
  • Class Action Challenges Retailer’s Sale Email, Pricing Model
  • CCPA Update: Reform Measures on the Precipice?
  • Arbitration: Supreme Court Deals a Near Death Blow to Class Action Arbitration
  • ‘Made in USA’ Settlement Divides FTC
  • INSIGHT: Transforming Your Legal Department Into A High-Performing Organization

Retail Spotlight for FDA Compliance: Jeremy Lutsky

Manatt recently welcomed Jeremy Lutsky to the firm. Jeremy brings with him two decades of deep experience advising major companies on a wide range of legal and regulatory matters, including Food and Drug Act (FDA) compliance, promotional review, regulatory guidance, M&A/transactions, advertising and sponsorships. His experience is particularly deep in the areas of pharmaceutical, over-the-counter and cosmetic products. In addition, Jeremy has experience within the retail industry, including with companies in the food and beverage space, and on regulatory guidance and litigation assistance, including advising on the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FDA/OIG guidance, the Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and other state and local transparency and sale licensure laws. He is also available to assist on promotional and marketing reviews for retail and consumer services companies across the board.

Will Single-Use Products and Packaging Be a Thing of the Past in California?

By Charles A. White, Senior Advisor, Environment

Walk down virtually any street, sidewalk, path, beach or trail in California and you will invariably find at least some single-use product or packaging as discarded waste. In most urban areas this has become a significant problem.1, 2These wastes take the form of cigarettes, butts and filters; food wrappers and containers; caps and lids; paper and plastic bags; cups, plates and utensils; straws and stirrers; glass and plastic bottles; and beverage cans. In fact, this list reflects the top nine categories making up 82% of the trash found on California beaches over the past 30 years—according to the California Coastal Commission3—and all are single-use products or packaging. During California Coastal Cleanup Day each year, close to 1 million pounds of waste debris is cleaned up, with the vast majority being single-use products and packaging. Further, the State Water Resources Control Board has adopted a trash plan4 that requires all stormwater permitted entities in California (cities, counties and industry) to achieve 100% control of trash entering the state’s waters by 2030.

Over the past 30 years, California has largely relied on recycling infrastructure in other countries, mostly China and Pacific Rim nations. California has enacted aspirational 75% recycling goals by relying on these foreign outlets to provide well over 50% of its paper and plastic processing and recycling capacity. This came crashing to an end in 2017 when China and other waste-importing countries became alarmed with the inflow of these materials and enacted bans and barriers to such waste commodities.5 While domestic and international outlets still exist, these markets now dictate significantly more processing and contaminant removal, at more expense, than in the past. Due to the increasing cost of recycling, many jurisdictions, in spite of California’s aspirational recycling goals, are resorting to landfill disposal. To counter this trend, others have even suggested instituting bans on the land disposal of single-use products and packaging. But would this help address the problem of single-use product and packaging discarded onto the streets? Certainly not. Such landfill bans would invariable lead to further mismanagement of these wastes.

Who is responsible for addressing this problem? Who is going to pay for the cost of achieving zero trash by 2030? Should cities and counties with stormwater collection systems be held accountable? Is the problem primarily due to the irresponsibility of individuals who improperly discard these items? Should we rely on public workers or volunteers to clean up this improperly managed waste? Should more regulatory pressure in the form of rules, regulations, fines and penalties be imposed on citizens and waste producers for the proper management of these wastes? Or, as California is considering, should more pressure be inflicted on the companies who manufacture and sell single-use products and packaging in California? While these supply-chain entities are not directly responsible for the improper discarding of these items, should they be held responsible for providing such single-use items that facilitate discarding rather than recycling or reuse? For the most part, this is a zero-sum game for the citizens of California. The cost of reducing improper single-use product and packaging disposal will likely fall to the people of the state, through either higher taxes and fees or higher prices for consumer products. But what approach will be the most cost-effective?

The California legislature is now considering two companion measures, SB 54 (Allen)6 and AB 1080 (Gonzalez),7that are identically worded while moving through their respective forums. Both are titled “California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act,” and both measures are widely supported by approximately 100 environmental organizations, public agencies, and entities seeking to benefit from restrictions on single-use products and packaging. Opposition to these measures, as proposed, is being voiced by a handful of national product and packaging associations.

Both SB 54 and AB 1080 are currently on their way to the second house, and both measures declare it is the policy goal of the state that by 2030, manufacturers and retailers of single-use products and packaging achieve a 75% reduction in the amount of waste generated by these materials. The bills further require CalRecycle, the state agency responsible for solid waste and recycling, to adopt regulations by January 1, 2023, that would require manufacturers and retailers of single-use products and packaging to source-reduce those products and ensure that they are recyclable or compostable. Single-use plastic products would be further defined as the 10 single-use plastic products that are most littered in California as determined by CalRecycle (i.e., those plastic items identified in the first paragraph above). Although not in either of the bills now, there is some speculation that these measures could morph into a new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program whereby manufacturers and retailers of single-use products and packaging would be responsible for the collection and management of these items at the end of the items’ useful life. This is not something that the manufacturers and retailers view with enthusiasm.

Most single-use packaging manufacturers and retailers who are engaged with this legislative process recognize they have a level of responsibility and are willing to entertain the notion that all single-use packaging must be recyclable or compostable at some point in the future, say 2030. Cigarette products, butts and filters will not likely need to be addressed in these measures, as there is another bill, SB 424 (Jackson),8 that has been separately introduced to specifically deal with waste tobacco products. Further, the single-use packaging industry appears willing to allow CalRecycle to further evaluate management options through the development of a scoping plan, with updates, over an extended period. The plan would:

  • further define the universe of single-use packaging to be regulated;
  • assess the current waste collection and recycling infrastructure;
  • evaluate end-use markets for collected materials;
  • assess the effectiveness of alternative policies to achieve defined objectives;
  • evaluate opportunities for encouraging reusable products and packaging;
  • identify incentives for, and streamlining of, instate recycling capacity; and
  • maximize state procurement of products containing recycled materials and compost.

Where this issue goes from here is uncertain. Further amendments to both SB 54 and AB 1080 will be entertained when these measures get to their respective second houses in early June 2019. The legislative session ends on September 13, and the legislature is unlikely to reach consensus on a final measure that can be enacted until much closer to that date. What is certain, however, is that manufacturers and retailers of single-use products and packaging will be increasingly faced with new challenges regarding the acceptability of these items in California—now and in the future.

1 https://www.cbs17.com/news/check-this-out/california-city-to-pay-homeless-15-per-hour-to-pick-up-street-trash/1559339711
2 https://www.ocregister.com/2019/02/04/after-storms-seal-beach-looks-like-a-landfill-blanketed-with-trash/
3 https://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/ccd/history.html#top10
4 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/trash_implementation.html
5 https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/markets/nationalsword/globalpolicies/
6 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB54
7 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1080
8 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB424

Just Passed: Nevada to Allow Consumers to Opt Out of Data Sales by October

By Jesse M. Brody, Partner, Advertising, Marketing and Media | Brandon P. Reilly, Counsel, Privacy and Data Security

Nevada has just passed its own privacy law, SB 220, allowing consumers to opt out of data sales by web operators in exchange for monetary consideration. Effective on October 1, 2019, Nevada is quietly getting the jump on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as the first state to require a broad right to opt out that spans industries. The new law amends Nevada’s 2017 law requiring web operators to make certain disclosures on its websites.

SB 220 is far narrower than the CCPA, applying only to website operators and online service providers, and only with respect to a limited dataset, including name, address, email address, phone number, Social Security number, individual identifiers, and any other information that becomes personally identifiable when combined with an identifier. The CCPA’s opt-out provision, by comparison, is not limited to online operators, applies to a wider dataset, and extends to sales for nonmonetary consideration.

Similar to the CCPA, SB 220’s opt-out right must be facilitated by an online mechanism or toll-free number and may be subject to reasonable verification. Responses must be provided within 60 days, subject to a 30-day extension upon consumer notice, as compared to the CCPA’s 45 days with the potential extension of an additional 90 days.

The law does not apply to entities in the healthcare or financial industries to the extent they are regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), respectively. It also exempts certain entities in the automotive industry and providers of online services working on behalf of other businesses.

While companies rush to identify solutions to meet the CCPA’s many wide-ranging requirements by January 2020, it turns out that Nevada has something to say about compliance timelines of those businesses that monetize consumer data. Any company doing Internet-based business in Nevada should immediately account for these new requirements in its overall privacy management plan or in any CCPA compliance project.

You can access the full text of SB 220 here.

Class Action Challenges Retailer’s Sale Email, Pricing Model

By Po Yi, Partner, Advertising, Marketing and Media

A Washington resident has filed suit against children’s clothing retailer Carter’s over an email touting a sale price that she alleges was false and deceptive.

On February 16, 2019, Maribell Aguilar received an email from Carter’s Inc. with the subject line “50-70% OFF EVERYTHING.” Believing the message to mean that she would receive a discount of 50 to 70 percent off the retailer’s regular or prevailing prices for all of its products, she visited a Carter’s store in Union Gap and purchased several items.

When Aguilar did not receive the discounts she understood were promised in the email, she filed suit, alleging violations of the state’s Consumer Protection Act and Commercial Electronic Mail Act.

The discounts were actually reductions from Carter’s manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP), she told the court, but there was nothing in the email subject line (such as an asterisk) that communicated that the 50 to 70 percent off referred to something other than Carter’s regular or prevailing price. In fact, Carter’s is the manufacturer of the clothes it sells, Aguilar added, and the MSRP is not set by the market or a third party.

Instead, “Carter’s intentionally sets the MSRP at an inflated dollar amount which Carter’s knows with certainty is grossly above the true market price for the product,” according to the complaint. “Meanwhile, Carter’s policy, as the manufacturer, is to give each product a price tag with this self-created, inflated MSRP which is the same regardless of whether the product is offered direct by Carter’s in its stores or on its website, or offered by its resellers.”

Carter’s also has a policy of “rarely if ever” offering its products in its retail stores or on its website at the purported MSRP, Aguilar alleged. Resellers of Carter’s products—retailers such as Kohl’s—similarly do not rely on the MSRP for pricing.

“In sum, neither Ms. Aguilar nor an ordinary Washington consumer did or would understand the words ‘50-70% OFF’ in the email’s subject line to refer to a discount from a self-created MSRP which Carter’s created in bad faith and which neither Carter’s nor its resellers treat as a real, bona fide price,” the plaintiff alleged.

Aguilar’s complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, requests injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.

To read the complaint in Aguilar v. Carter’s, Inc., click here.

Why it matters: Lawsuits questioning the use of MSRPs as the basis for sale or outlet pricing have been a frequent target for consumer class actions in recent years. In her new Washington federal court complaint, the plaintiff tacked on a claim based on the email she received from Carter’s, which she alleged violated state law by containing false or misleading information in its subject line.

CCPA Update: Reform Measures on the Precipice?

By Thomas R. McMorrow, Partner, Government and Regulatory | Delilah L. Clay, Legislative & Regulatory Advisor,Government and Regulatory

California’s sweeping consumer privacy and data security law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, is set to take effect in 2020 despite concerns that big problems with the new law remain unresolved.

The primary legislative backers of the CCPA recognized there were flaws when they negotiated and successfully lobbied for its fast-track, high-pressure enactment last year, committing to come back in 2019 to address the problems. A principal author of the CCPA, Assembly Member Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), spoke to the issue in Roll Call, noting that “we’re cleaning up the law” because it “may not be perfect.”

California legislators have already given preliminary consideration to more than a score of bills from both business and privacy advocates intended to amend the CCPA to address the problems they perceive with the law before it takes effect next year. Many of these bills passed their house of origin last week and are now awaiting hearings in the second house. Yet most of the discussion heading into this week focuses on the failure of SB 561 (Jackson), because its failure may jeopardize the remaining CCPA reform bills.

Powerful State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) raised the prospect of blocking proposed legislative changes to the CCPA in response to the failure of SB 561. SB 561 would have expanded the CCPA’s private right of action and eliminated the ability of businesses to cure violations of the law. The bill would also have eliminated the provision in the CCPA requiring the attorney general to issue compliance opinions.

These carefully negotiated provisions are intended to strike a balance between the interests of consumers and businesses in how the CCPA will be enforced. The private right of action ensures that consumers can directly enforce their rights under the CCPA against a business in the event of a data breach, but the cure provision ensures businesses receive notice of and a 30-day period to cure alleged violations. Better balance was also a consideration in the provision permitting the attorney general to issue CCPA compliance opinions at the request of businesses or individuals. Business interests argue this guidance is essential to ensure their efforts to comply with the CCPA align with the attorney general’s interpretation of the law.

Senator Jackson spoke to this balance in explaining her view to The New York Times: that the CCPA should not be amended at all if her proposed changes in SB 561 will not also be made. “If my bill to try to make [the CCPA] enforceable failed because we have to stick to the deal that was made last year, [other legislative] efforts to undermine it, to give exclusions and exemptions—all sorts of excuses for not enforcing it—then those have to fail as well.”

As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Jackson is positioned to carry out her threat if she chooses to. Most of the proposed amendments to the CCPA sought by business interests are included in bills that originated in the Assembly. As these bills come to the Senate, they will be referred to the Judiciary Committee for a hearing and vote. As chair of the committee, Senator Jackson can block further action on the bills referred to her committee.

Senator Jackson’s tactic is not a surprise. It is common for committee chairs to protect the interests of their house, their caucus and even their personal policy views by holding up other legislation until their legislative priorities are addressed. The only unknowns are whether Senator Jackson will act on her threat and, if so, what policy or other concessions she may require before she releases CCPA reform bills for full Senate consideration.

Arbitration: Supreme Court Deals a Near Death Blow to Class Action Arbitration

By Richard E. Gottlieb, Partner, Manatt Financial Services | Esra A. Hudson, Partner, Employment and Labor | Alma Piñan, Associate, Litigation

The Supreme Court, in a sharply-divided 5-4 ruling issued on April 24, ruled that nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act allows courts to compel class action arbitration even if the contract is ambiguous in that regard, and notwithstanding rules that direct courts to interpret such ambiguities most strongly against the drafter.

What happened

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) broadly favors arbitration and the parties’ ability to contract away their litigation rights through this alternate dispute resolution process. That said, back in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int’l that a court may not compel arbitration on a classwide basis when an agreement is “silent” on the availability of such arbitration. Because class arbitration fundamentally changes the nature of the “traditional individualized arbitration” envisioned by federal law, the Court concluded in ­Stolt-Nielsen that a party may not be compelled to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so. In its April 24 ruling, the Court now concludes that federal law likewise prevents class arbitration, even when the arbitration agreement is ambiguous on the issue, because the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce covered arbitration agreements according to the terms of those agreements, and an ambiguous provision cannot be interpreted to compel class action arbitration.

As a general rule, when a contract is ambiguous, courts will apply, as a last resort, the rule of contract interpretation known as contra proferentem, which means that the ambiguous contract provision at issue will be interpreted against the drafter. In the decision below, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did precisely that, concluding that the arbitration agreement at issue was ambiguous on the question of class action arbitration, and must be resolved in favor of ordering such arbitration. Indeed, this appeared to be consistent with Supreme Court precedent such as Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth (1985) and Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction (1983), holding that any ambiguities about the scope of an arbitration agreement must be resolved in favor of arbitration.

But here, the Supreme Court draws the line on class action arbitration. Citing AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011), the Court concludes that individual parties cannot force class action arbitration on other similarly situated parties without the parties’ consent because it is inconsistent with the FAA to apply the more general contra proferentemrule to impose class arbitration in the absence of the parties’ clear consent.

In addition, in one of three dissents, Justice Kagan wrote the primary opinion and largely agreed with a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas on the core principle that the dispute should have been resolved by applying common law contract principles. Those well-established principles, she wrote, ought to have resolved the case against Lamps Plus’s request for individual arbitration because, based on those rules of contract interpretation and Supreme Court precedent requiring contracts to be enforced in accordance with their terms, the arbitration agreement Lamps Plus wrote would be “best understood to authorize arbitration on a classwide basis.” Moreover, she wrote, “a plain-vanilla rule of contract interpretation, applied in California as in every other State, requires reading it against the drafter—and so likewise permits a class proceeding here.”

Ultimately, however, that view did not carry the day. The Court noted the importance of recognizing the fundamental difference between class arbitration and the individualized form of arbitration. Class arbitration is slower, more costly and more likely to generate procedural morass than is individual arbitration. Thus, silence and ambiguity are not enough to compel class arbitration. This decision should ensure that parties to an arbitration agreement are not forced into inefficient class arbitration proceedings unless the parties expressly agreed to such proceedings.

To read the Supreme Court’s opinion, concurrence and dissents, click here.

Why it matters

This is a major development in arbitration law because courts have applied the rule of contra proferentem to force class action arbitration on the parties based on purported ambiguity in arbitration agreements, even when none exists. With the ruling, the Supreme Court has made clear that the FAA prohibits the use of state-law rules of contract interpretation to the extent they seek to impose classwide arbitration in the absence of an express agreement to that effect.

‘Made in USA’ Settlement Divides FTC

By Po Yi, Partner, Advertising, Marketing and Media

Siding with the government, a California appellate panel held that section 17501 of the Business & Professions Code was not unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied to national retailers accused of deceptive pricing.

In 2017, the Los Angeles city attorney sued several retailers, including J.C. Penney, Kohl’s and Sears, alleging that they violated the statute by selling products online using deceptive or untrue statements about the former prices of those products. According to the complaint, the defendants offered their goods at “reference prices” that falsely purported to reflect their own former prices.

The complaints alleged that for significant percentages of the advertised items, the actual prices were always below the claimed former prices during the 90-day period, and that for the vast majority of the advertised items, the actual prices were below the claimed former prices on all but 30 days (or fewer) during the 90-day period.

The defendants “deliberately and artificially set the false reference prices higher than [their] actual former sales prices so that customers are deceived into believing that they are getting a bargain when purchasing products,” the city attorney alleged.

In a demurrer, the defendants argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied. A trial court sustained the demurrer but the appellate panel reversed.

Even though the statute’s impact on protected speech triggered a higher standard for clarity, it was not inherently unworkable or devoid of guidance to retailers, the court found. With respect to the as-applied challenge, the record was insufficient to support the defendants’ demurrer, the court said.

The court first discussed the extent to which the statute restricts free speech rights. The defendants were correct that the law restricts protected commercial speech because it “forbids any advertisement of the former price of an ‘advertised thing’ that does not express the market price information regarding former worth or value,” the court said. Nothing, however, suggested the existence of a legislative intent to focus the statute exclusively on false, misleading and deceptive commercial speech, the panel wrote.

“In view of the allegations, under any reasonable specification of a requisite three-month market price for the in-house goods … it is clear that the three-month market prices were often—and perhaps always—less than the claimed former prices,” the panel wrote. “The allegations thus suffice to establish that real parties routinely advertised former price claims for in-house goods not coinciding with the three-month market prices. For that reason, much or all of real parties’ alleged conduct ‘readily fall[s]’ within the scope of the statute.”

As for whether the statute’s prohibition was an invalid regulation of commercial speech, “the meager record permits no evaluation of the validity of … section 17501 under the Central Hudson test,” the panel said. “In view of the broad sweep of the prohibition in the statute, we question whether an adequate justification exists for the prohibition. Nonetheless, the record before us does not establish that the requisite justification does not exist. For that reason, [the defendants’] ‘free speech’ challenge necessarily fails on demurrer.”

Turning to the void for vagueness contention, the appellate panel rejected both of the defendants’ arguments.

“Their facial challenge to section 17501 fails in its entirety because the statute clearly prohibits some of the misconduct alleged in the complaints; furthermore, the as-applied challenge relating to the remaining misconduct fails on demurrer for want of factual allegations sufficient to support the challenge.”

Vacating the trial court’s order sustaining the defendants’ demurrer, the appellate panel remanded the case.

To read the opinion in People v. J.C. Penney Corp., click here.

Why it matters: By vacating the trial court’s grant of demurrer on grounds the statute was void for vagueness, the appellate panel’s decision reaffirms the validity of Section 17501. It also puts retailers on notice that additional enforcement actions may be in their future.

INSIGHT: Transforming Your Legal Department Into A High-Performing Organization

Manatt’s Suzanne Rich Folsom and Robert Garretson lend decades of executive experience in strategic leadership, corporate governance and legal department/regulatory compliance management. In an article discussing structured change management for Bloomberg Law, the pair prepares forward-looking legal departments to redesign and optimize business operations by limiting inefficiencies, refreshing protocols and reinvigorating performance. Read more.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Contact
more
less

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.