Clothing Accessories Companies Penalized for False Made in USA Claims

/in , ,

In August 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finalized a complaint and order against Chaucer Accessories, Inc. and two other companies owned by Thomas P. Bates for falsely labeling belts, shoes, and other products as “Made in the USA” (MUSA). The order includes a monetary judgment of $191,481.

According to FTC, the New England-based companies regularly claimed that certain products were MUSA, even though these products were wholly or largely imported. In other instances, the companies claimed that certain belts were “Made in the USA from Global Materials,” when in reality, the companies merely affixed buckles to imported belt straps. FTC alleged three violations of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act: one violation for the false MUSA claims, one violation for the false MUSA from global materials claim, and one violation for distributing the false claims to resellers for their use in the resale of the products.

In addition to the monetary judgment, the order places restrictions on the companies and Bates on making unqualified MUSA claims, prohibits them from misrepresenting their products’ country of origin or providing others the means to make misrepresentations and imposes requirements for qualified MUSA claims and assembly claims. The companies must also notify affected customers of the violations and provide FTC with sufficient customer information for the Commission to administer customer redress.

EPA Launches New Interface for the Chemicals and Products Database

/in ,

EPA has released a beta version of ChemExpo, a free, publicly available web application that allows users to explore and visualize data on how chemicals are used in commerce.

ChemExpo will serve as a user-friendly interface for EPA’s Chemicals and Products Database (CPDat).  According to EPA, CPDat maps “more than 49,000 chemicals to a set of terms categorizing their usage or function in 16,000 consumer product types (e.g., shampoo, soap) based on what chemicals they contain.”  EPA characterizes this data, which is curated from public documents, as addressing important gaps in the exposure information needed to evaluate chemicals’ safety under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The ChemExpo team welcomes comments and feedback on the beta, particularly regarding functionality and usability.

Colgate Faces False Advertisement Suit Over Recyclable Claims

/in

A class action lawsuit has been filed in a California federal court against the Colgate-Palmolive Company (“Colgate”), alleging the company falsely advertises its Colgate and Tom’s of Maine branded toothpaste tubes as recyclable. The complaint alleges that Colgate’s claims are a violation of the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which prohibits a product from being called recyclable “unless there is an established recycling program, municipal or private, through which the product will be converted into, or used in, another product or package.”

The complaint also alleges California Business and Professions Code violations, which make it “unlawful for any person to make untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claims.”

A number of Colgate branded products, including but not limited to its popular products Colgate MaxFresh Toothpaste, Colgate Optic White Toothpaste, and Colgate Sensitive Toothpaste, feature the three-arrow recycling symbol atop the language “Recyclable Tube.” The company’s Tom’s of Maine product packaging advertises its toothpaste tubes as “The First of its Kind Recyclable Tube.” This language is used on over ten of its toothpaste products. None of the packaging of these products, Colgate or Tom’s of Maine, includes language that limits or qualifies the recyclability claims.

Additional recyclability claims are made on the brands’ websites. The Tom’s of Maine website features the following claims, which the Plaintiff alleges are misrepresentations:

  • “Recyclable Tube”
  • “Recycle Me!”
  • “Buy Smart – By reaching for this toothpaste tube you’re actively making a difference.”
  • “Recycle It – Our recyclable tube is not meant for a landfill – it gets turned into useful products.”
  • “As the leaders in the oral care industry, we wanted to create a recyclable alternative.”

While the toothpaste tubes are theoretically recyclable, a consultant at the Association of Plastic Recyclers stated, “[f]or many facilities in the US, the company’s new recyclable tubes are indistinguishable from those made from more common plastics, prompting recyclers to reject them. The old tubes could cause contamination if consumers put them in the recycling bin, so it’s easier for recycling facilities to reject toothpaste tubes across the board.”

In support of its argument, the complaint cites a recent Bloomberg article discussing the accuracy of Colgate’s claims with two solid waste management companies operating in California. (The two companies, Waste Management, Inc. and Republic Services, account for more than 40 percent of recycling services provided to consumers in California and about 25 percent of the recycling services on a national scale.) The companies highlighted that toothpaste tubes “are not in its list of acceptable items” and that there is serious concern about contamination from leftover toothpaste that remains in the tube.

According to the complaint, Colgate is fully aware that its products end up in landfills or are incinerated because recycling facilities do not accept its products. Colgate has even gone so far as to release a video on its website stating as much and explaining that the company is “continu[ing] the work beyond technically recyclable toward acceptance of tubes in recycling centers.” If recycling centers do not accept toothpaste tubes, their recyclability is irrelevant, and labeling and advertising their products as recyclable is false, misleading, and deceptive to consumers and members of the public seeking to make environmentally conscious purchasing decisions.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction on the sale of these products until such time the labeling and advertising language can be modified to remove recyclability language or alternatively to include a qualified claim that accurately states the availability of recycling programs. To be in compliance with the Green Guides’ environmental marketing requirements, a company is only permitted to make unqualified recyclable claims “[w]hen recycling facilities are available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the item is sold.” The Guides further clarify a substantial majority to mean at least 60 percent, and that “[w]hen recycling facilities are available to less than a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the item is sold, marketers should qualify all recyclable claims.”

Additionally, Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and statutory damages.

Canada Requests Input on Proposed CCPSA Requirements for Consumer Chemical Products

/in ,

Health Canada has released a notice of intent requesting comments on proposed regulatory requirements for consumer chemical products under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA).  The Department says it will use the comments and information received to shape a potential regulatory initiative that would mandate information disclosure and other requirements for certain human health hazards of concern (HHHOCs) in consumer products.

The 2001 Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations use restrictions on dangerous consumer chemical products, information disclosure requirements, and container requirements to address acute human health and physical hazards, such as acute toxicity and corrosivity.  However, the 2001 regulations do not include requirements to mitigate risks from HHHOCs, which include carcinogenicity, germ cell mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity, specific organ toxicity, and respiratory/skin sensitization.

The initiative would implement hazard classification criteria for HHHOCs consistent with the United Nations Globally Harmonized System (GHS), establish disclosure requirements for HHHOCs based on GHS label elements (including hazard symbols, signal words, hazard statements, precautionary statements, and ingredient disclosure requirements), and institute additional prohibitions, restrictions, or child-resistant container requirements where deemed necessary.

The proposal applies to consumer products within the scope of the CCPSA that are supplied in containers and classified in an HHHOC category or sub-category according to GHS classification criteria.  Health Canada clarified that the initiative would not apply to consumer products that cannot expose the user to any of its hazardous ingredients during reasonably foreseeable use or vaping products covered under the Tabacco and Vaping Products Act.  The comment period ends on October 9, 2023.

PFAS Class Action Brought Against Sports Drink Company

/in

A consumer class action lawsuit has been filed against Biosteel Sports Nutrition, Inc. in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the company’s BioSteel Blue Raspberry flavored sports drink contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). Defendant’s products are marketed as healthy sports drinks, using language such as “clean, quality ingredients,” “designed with sustainability in mind,” “no artificial flavors/colors,” and “good for you and the environment.” The product packaging additionally claims that the product is “highly regarded for its premium ingredients and zero sugar formula.”

Plaintiffs claim that based on this language, they believed the product to be a healthy sports drink, but the presence of PFAS directly contradicts Biosteel Sports Nutrition’s marketing claims. The suit alleges violations of the New York General Business Law § 349, et seq., which prohibits deceptive acts and practices in business, violations of New York General Business Law § 350, et seq. prohibiting false advertising, breach of express warranty, fraud, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment.

On August 4, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Plaintiff’s testing of its product was insufficient to demonstrate that PFAS substances are present in its products. The motion claims the testing allegations are “devoid of any details regarding the methodology or sample used.” Additionally, according to Biosteel Sports Nutrition, this information was not within the complaint or the amended complaint.

EPA Requests Information on Addressing PFAS in the Environment for the Superfund Program

/in , ,

EPA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking, Addressing PFAS in the Environment, asking for public input, which the Agency will use to develop future per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Agency asked for information on the potential future hazardous substance designation of a number of PFAS, categories of PFAS, and several PFAS precursors.

Request for Public Input Regarding Potential Future Hazardous Substance Designation of Seven PFAS

EPA had previously proposed designating PFOA and PFOS and their salts and structural isomers as hazardous substances under CERLA. The present notice requested feedback as to whether the agency should initiate action designating an additional seven PFAS and their salts and structural isomers or a subset thereof as CERCLA hazardous substances as well. The seven PFAS being considered for designation are:

  • Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), CASRN 375–73–5
  • Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), CASRN 355–46–4
  • Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), CASRN 375–95–1
  • Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO–DA), CASRN 13252–13–6
  • Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) CASRN 375–22–4
  • Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) CASRN 307–24–4
  • Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) CASRN 335–76–2

EPA asked interested parties to submit information on whether any of these compounds may present substantial danger to public health or welfare or the environment. Such information could include data on mobility, persistence, and prevalence.

Request for Public Input Regarding Potential Future Hazardous Substance Designation of Precursors to PFOA, PFOS, and PFAS

The Agency is also considering initiating action that would designate certain PFAS precursors as hazardous substances under CERCLA. To make this determination, EPA requested information to help the Agency identify compounds that degrade to these PFAS through environmental processes such as biodegradation and hydrolysis.

Request for Public Input Regarding Potential Designation, or Designations, of Categories of PFAS as Hazardous Substances

Additionally, EPA is considering initiating action that would designate groups or categories of PFAS as CERCLA hazardous substances. These groups or categories would be based on characteristics that determine risk to human health and the environment, such as chemical structure, physical and chemical properties, mode of toxicological action, and precursors or degradants. To inform its decision-making, the Agency solicited the following information:

  • Published scientific literature that can inform whether categories of PFAS could or could not be designated as hazardous substances. This could include findings on the similarities or differences of a specific characteristic among PFAS. Also useful would be data on the relationship between different characteristics, such as the relationship between chemical structure and specific chemical, physical, or toxicological properties.
  • Other information that could inform EPA’s determination of whether to designate one or more categories of PFAS as hazardous substances.
  • Information that would contribute to economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits, including impacts on small entities, associated with a potential rulemaking designating categories of PFAS as hazardous substances. (Although CERCLA section 102(a) precludes EPA from taking cost into account in the designation of a hazardous substance, the Agency is requesting this information to help the Agency understand the potential costs and benefits associated with any potential future regulatory action.)

The deadline for submitting comments was extended from June 12 to August 11, 2023, during which period over 600 comments were submitted. The comments can be reviewed here.

EPA Releases Draft IRIS Assessment of PFHxS and Related Salts

/in , ,

On July 24, 2023, EPA released a draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid (PFHxS) and Related Salts.  Comments on the draft assessment will be accepted through September 22, 2023.

The IRIS assessment found that, given sufficient exposure conditions, PFHxS is likely to cause thyroid and developmental immune effects in humans.  Other evidence suggests but is insufficient to infer that PFHxS exposure might cause teratological, hepatic, neurodevelopmental, and cardiometabolic effects in humans.  EPA concluded that there is inadequate information to assess whether PFHxS exposure can result in hematopoietic, reproductive, renal, and carcinogenic effects.

PFHxS is one of three PFAS currently undergoing IRIS assessments, along with PFNA and PFDA.  EPA previously published final IRIS assessments for two other PFAS: PFBA in December 2022 and PFHxA in April 2023.

Better Business Bureau Challenge Results in Clarifying Disclosure in Antimicrobial Toilet Seat Advertising

/in , ,

Business Bureau (BBB) National Programs develops self-regulatory industry programs and resolves disputes on issues including advertising and privacy.  According to BBB National Programs, National Advertising Division (NAD) case decisions “represent the single largest body of advertising law in the country.”

A recent NAD case concerned antimicrobial claims made by Ginsey Industries, Inc. (“Ginsey”) on its Clorox-branded toilet seats.  Bemis Manufacturing Company challenged elements of these claims (though not the product’s antimicrobial efficacy).  During the challenge, Ginsey voluntarily committed to add a disclosure acknowledging that the product does not protect uses against bacteria and remove an “antimicrobial checkmark image inside the Clorox chevron logo.”

NAD additionally recommended that Ginsey modify its website to display the disclosure statement more conspicuously and work with retailers to do the same with their websites.  In response, the company stated that while it disagrees that “further modifications to its online product listings are necessary to protect consumers,” it would comply with NAD’s decision.

FDA Issues Draft Guidance for MoCRA Facility Registration and Product Listing

/in , ,

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released draft guidance, Draft Guidance for Industry: Registration and Listing of Product Facilities and Products, on the new regulatory requirements established in the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA).  Among other provisions, MoCRA added section 607 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), requiring cosmetic product facility registration and cosmetic product listing.  The draft document details key registration and product listing requirements, including who must submit, what information is required, when registration and listings must be submitted, and how the FDA intends to accept registration and listing information.

All persons who own or operate a facility engaged in the manufacture or processing of a cosmetic product for distribution in the U.S. must register their facility.  Under MoCRA, a cosmetic product “means a preparation of cosmetic ingredients with a qualitatively and quantitatively set composition for use in a finished product.”  FFDCA section 607(a)(1) provides two exceptions regarding who must register.  The first exception is for small businesses that have average gross annual sales of less than $1 million in the previous three years, unless they manufacture or process cosmetics that regularly come in contact with the mucus membrane of the eye, are injected, are intended for internal use, or are intended to alter appearance for more than 24 hours (and are not meant to be removed by the customer).  The second exemption is for facilities subject to the drugs and devices requirements under chapter V of the FFDCA, unless they also manufacture cosmetics that are not subject to the drug and device requirements.  The same exemptions apply for submission of product listing information.

Facility registration requirements are outlined in sections 607(a) and (b) of the FFDCA.  The requirements for facility registration include all brand names under which the cosmetic products manufactured or processed in the facility are sold and the product categories for each cosmetic product manufactured or processed in the facility.  Registrations must be submitted by December 29, 2023, for facilities that were manufacturing or processing cosmetic products on December 29, 2022.  Facilities that began manufacturing or processing after December 29, 2022, must register within 60 days of first engaging in that activity or by February 27, 2024, whichever date is later.  Registrations must be updated within 60 days of any changes to the registration information and must be renewed biennially.

Product listing requirements are outlined in FFDCA section 607(c) and include the facility registration number for each facility where the cosmetic product is manufactured or processed, its applicable cosmetic category or categories, and a list of product ingredients (including fragrances, flavors, or colors).  Listings must be submitted by December 29, 2023, for products that were marketed on December 29, 2022.  Products that were first marketed after December 29, 2022, must be listed within 120 days of marketing the product, or within 120 days of December 29, 2023, whichever date is later.  Any updates to the listing must be made annually.

Importantly, FDA clarified that any prior registrations through the Agency’s voluntary cosmetics registration programs will not be transferred to the new system; submitters will have to re-submit this information.

According to FDA, an electronic submission portal should be open for submissions beginning in October 2023, although a paper submission form is also available.

EPA Faces Lawsuit for Classifying Water Filtration System as a Pesticide Product

/in , ,

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will be tasked with determining whether EPA’s Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) enforcement actions against Berkey, a water filters brand, were arbitrary and capricious in the case Shepherd v. Regan.  The case concerns seven Stop Sale, Use and Removal Orders (SSUROs) issued by EPA against third-party distributors and manufacturers of Berkey water filtration products due to their alleged use of silver as an unregistered antimicrobial pesticide.

The complaint does not deny the presence of silver in Berkey products.  However, the plaintiffs say that they are unaware of any instances where a Berkey-authorized entity claimed that the silver in their products was “used for any purpose other than to protect the filter itself.”  This is significant because articles treated with a FIFRA-registered pesticide for the purpose of protecting the article are exempt from FIFRA under the treated articles exemption at 40 CFR 152.25.

The plaintiffs argue that the orders were the result of an unlawful reinterpretation of a 2007 notice, which clarified EPA’s position that equipment that uses electrodes to emit ions for pesticidal purposes is a “pesticide,” rather than a “device,” under FIFRA.  The complaint alleges that EPA reinterpreted this notice without opportunity for public comment to “now apply to the presence of inert silver in water filters.”

In its response, EPA argues that the plaintiffs—which do not represent Berkey itself—lack standing.  The Agency also characterizes the 2007 notice referenced in the complaint as a “straw man” with no bearing on the case.  EPA does not believe there is any ambiguity regarding the distinction between “pesticides” and “devices,” arguing that EPA has excluded water filters containing pesticidal substances from its interpretation of “devices” since 1975.

EPA focuses on claims made by the SSURO recipients, which allegedly advertised that Berkey filters removed viruses and pathogenic bacteria.  The Agency has long held that such public health claims make a product ineligible for the treated article exemption, EPA says.  Combined with knowledge of the presence of silver in the products, and no pesticide registration, EPA argues that it had “reason to believe” (the requirement for issuance of an SSURO) that the substances were sold in violation of FIFRA.