Hunton Retail Law Resource

In the world of consumer products, the month of May was all about infant sleep products. The CPSC recently approved a new federal standard for infant sleep products for infants up to five months of age since such inclined sleepers, bassinets, and in-bed sleepers that have been linked to multiple infant deaths. Beginning in June 2022, infant sleep products must meet a new federal safety standard. The new federal standard incorporates a voluntary ASTM safety standard with further modifications to strengthen it. If the products do not already meet the requirements of an existing CPSC standard, then the products must pass testing to confirm that the sleep angle surface is 10 degrees or lower and comply with the CPSC’s safety standard for bassinets and cradles.

The CPSC recently announced its first civil penalty of 2021.  Cybex International, Inc. (Cybex) agreed to pay $7.95 million after the workout equipment manufacturer allegedly failed to immediately report to the CPSC the defects in two of its products.

The CPSC recently posted guidance on its website for consumer products related to COVID-19, including personal protective equipment. The guidance covers four categories of products: (a) face coverings, (b) gowns, (c) gloves, and (d) disinfectant and cleaning products. The guidance emphasizes that personal protective equipment sold to consumers must comply with all CPSC regulations, which include testing, certification, labeling, and recordkeeping requirements. The guidance drew sharp criticism from CPSC Commissioner Dana Baiocco in a statement:

The CPSC took proactive steps in October to address recent concerns with infant sleep products that pose suffocation hazards and could lead to Sudden Infant Death (SID).  This month the agency made a rare proposal for a mandatory consumer product safety standard to address the risks associated with crib mattresses.  The safety standard would incorporate by reference the voluntary standard ASTM F2933-19 (Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Crib Mattresses) with modifications to make the standard even more stringent.  These modifications include increased product performance testing to cover crib mattress firmness, coil spring issues, and face-in-mattress scenarios.  The new rule would also update the product’s warning labels, instructions, and packaging to remove unnecessary wording and emphasize the importance of positioning infants on their backs to sleep.  For example, the proposal compares the voluntary standard’s warning label to the proposed mandatory standard’s warning label:

Should you have to pay to see CPSC’s adopted safety standards?  That is the question raised by a lawsuit filed in the Third Circuit this month, which challenges the CPSC’s adoption of mandatory safety standards for consumer products that are not available for free to the public.  The American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) is a well-recognized independent organization that develops consensus-based, voluntary standards for children’s products.  In 2019, ASTM updated its safety specifications for infant bath seats, which includes changes to labeling, product performance, and safety testing (ASTM F1967-19).  The CPSC later promulgated an agency rule adopting the updated ASTM standard as legally binding on infant bath seat manufacturers (16 C.F.R. § 1215).  On behalf of a new mother, a civil rights group filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2060 challenging the CPSC’s rule.  The mother claims that she asked the CPSC for a copy of the standard and the CPSC instead directed her to buy a copy from ASTM.  ASTM charges $56 for a copy of the standard—almost double the price of an infant bath seat.  The petition asks the Third Circuit to vacate the rule, order the CPSC to make any binding standard freely accessible to the public whenever the CPSC proposes to promulgate a new rule, and order the CPSC to make any binding standard freely accessible to the public permanently after the CPSC adopts it in a final rule.

Many recent government orders require “nonessential” businesses to close due to COVID-19, resulting in massive financial losses for many retail businesses. The orders also change how “essential” retailers do business. For instance, Miami-Dade County’s mayor issued an executive order requiring people who visit or work at, among other places, grocery stores, restaurants and pharmacies to use face coverings. Los Angeles County issued a similar order. These orders may result in businesses’ turning away noncompliant customers, which will cause further financial harm. Regardless of the jurisdictions where your retail business is located, it is likely that there is a governmental order affecting its operations. Your business is likely sustaining or will sustain substantial losses as a result, and incur additional expenses to comply with evolving requirements and guidelines and in resuming operations as soon as possible.

The new year ushered in a series of warnings from the CPSC about inclined infant sleepers posing suffocation risks and dressers posing tip-over risks to consumers. Both products have been under scrutiny by the CPSC over the past year.

With Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle’s earlier announcement  that she will leave the CPSC this fall, this month the commissioners elected Commissioner Robert Adler as the new acting chairman. Adler has been affiliated with the CPSC for more than 40 years. He has served as a commissioner since 2009 and previously served as the acting chairman from December 2013 through July 2014.

This month serves as a reminder to manufacturers, distributors, retailers and importers that consumer products carry strong liability risks when they pose risks of serious injury or death. Steps should be taken to reduce that liability, including the issuance of alerts and recalls to remove the products from the stream of commerce.

In a recent article in the ABA Business Law Section publication Business Law Today, Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance attorneys Syed Ahmad and Geoffrey Fehling discuss several important D&O insurance coverage issues that can have far-reaching implications with retailers and other businesses involved in mergers, acquisitions, and other M&A deals. In the article, the authors discuss the intersection of M&A and insurance and how those transactions can impact the potential risks and protections afforded by D&O and other insurance policies. A copy of the article can be found here

The CPSC this month issued notices to multiple consumer product companies explaining that the CPSC “recently discovered that nonpublic manufacturer information identifying your company by name along with product model name and/or model number was released in error to the public without following the procedures of 15 U.S.C. § 2055,” which provides procedures for and restrictions on the Commission’s public disclosure of manufacturer and product-specific information. The notice offers few details about the unauthorized disclosure’s nature or scope, raising questions about whether the released data comes from inspections, product safety investigations, recalls, consumer safety complaints or other possibly confidential or commercially sensitive information. This kind of disclosure may have a chilling effect going forward on the candor encouraged between the CPSC and regulated companies by Section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act.

December was a quiet month in the world of recalls for two reasons. First, there were only 19 product recalls—the second lowest number of monthly recalls in 2019. Second, the partial federal government shutdown has forced the CPSC along with other agencies to close until President Trump and Congress can resolve their well-publicized funding dispute.

With a new commissioner confirmed in September, the Commission once again has five commissioners. A philosophical divide along party lines surfaced this month in two decisions.

The first decision involved the settlement of an administrative lawsuit filed by the CPSC in February. The lawsuit alleged that a distributor refused to recall three-wheeled jogging strollers after consumer complaints that the front wheel can detach suddenly during use, causing injuries to at least 50 children and 47 adults. To settle the lawsuit, the distributor agreed to notify dealers and retailers and to “develop and launch an information campaign that will include an instructional video demonstrating how to safely and correctly operate” the stroller.  Eligible consumers who participate in this campaign can receive “incentives,” such as hardware to repair the stroller or a 20% discount towards the purchase of a new stroller from the same distributor.

October began with a CPSC announcement that a major retailer agreed to pay a $3.85M civil penalty for failing to report that a trash can it sold contained a defect or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury. The retailer sold 367,000 of the trash cans nationwide between December 2013 and May 2015. Allegedly the trash can’s plastic collar may dislodge, exposing a sharp edge and posing a laceration hazard to consumers. The retailer received 92 consumer complaints about this alleged defect but did not immediately notify the CPSC of the defect. The CPSC announced a recall of the trash can in July 2015. In addition to the civil penalty, the retailer agreed to maintain a compliance program and a system of internal controls and procedures to ensure it discloses information to the CPSC in accordance with applicable law. The Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to accept the settlement.

This month marks the 10th anniversary of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (“CPSIA”), which was signed into law on August 14, 2008. CPSIA was a bipartisan response to unsettling events in the world of consumer products that occurred in 2007. During that landmark year, reports emerged about lead contamination in a wide range of consumer products—including children’s toys—that forced the CPSC into the national spotlight and facilitated over 400 recalls. The CPSIA aimed to significantly enhance the CPSC’s regulatory and enforcement power by doubling its budget, increasing its staff levels, prohibiting the sale of recalled products and increasing its civil penalties. For example, before CPSIA, the CPSC could impose civil penalties in the amount of $8,000 per violation, with a maximum of $1.825 million. But in 2008, CPSIA increased significantly the amount of civil penalties to $100,000 per violation, with a maximum of $15 million, adjusted for inflation.

The CPSC experienced a political shake-up this month when the U.S. Senate confirmed Dana Baiocco as the newest commissioner. In September, President Trump nominated Baiocco, a Republican and former partner at Jones Day, but the Senate did not act on the nomination by the end of the 2017 calendar year. So President Trump resubmitted his nomination of Baiocco in January. On May 22, 2018, the Senate confirmed Baiocco by a vote of 50-45, mostly along party lines. Her seven-year term will run through October of 2024.

On the heels of a recent $5 million civil penalty, the CPSC recently secured a $1.5 million civil penalty with help from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The civil penalty concludes a long saga between the CPSC and a large arts and crafts retailer about vases with allegedly defective thin glass that rendered them prone to shattering.

The CPSC has flexed its regulatory muscle during the first months of 2018 with respect to products that pose risks to children. With the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) help, the CPSC secured a $5 million civil penalty against a drug company for its allegedly deficient child-resistant packaging. In December, the DOJ filed a complaint in federal court against the drug company alleging that it knowingly violated the Poison Prevention Packaging Act and the Consumer Product Safety Act by distributing five household prescription drugs with non-compliant child-resistant packaging and failing to report the noncompliance to the CPSC. The complaint alleges that the drug company’s engineers drafted a “risk analysis” memo identifying the packaging as non-compliant. Rather than halt distribution and immediately report the non-compliance to the CPSC, the drug company continued distribution with non-compliant packaging while concurrently developing compliant packaging. The company also waited nearly 15 months before notifying the CPSC of its non-compliant packaging. In January, the federal court entered a consent decree for the matter. The drug company agreed to pay a $5 million civil penalty, implement and maintain a compliance program, and maintain and enforce a system of internal controls and procedures.

With the arrival of 2018, President Trump resubmitted his nominations for CPSC leadership vacancies to the Senate. In 2017, Trump nominated Commissioner Ann Marie Buerkle to serve as CPSC Chair and Dana Baiocco to serve as a commissioner replacing Democrat Commissioner Marietta Robinson, whose term expired. But, under Senate rules, nominations not acted on are returned to the President. At the end of the Senate’s 2017 session, this meant that roughly 120 nominations were returned to Trump. Both nominees—Buerkle and Baiocco—are expected to receive Senate confirmation this year.

October ushered in a case that might, on one hand, provoke a sigh of relief for manufacturers, distributors and retailers concerned about the upward trend in multimillion dollar civil penalties from the CPSC or, on the other hand, raise some eyebrows of concern about the extent of a court’s authority to prospectively impose auditing, compliance and training measures. See United States v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., No. 15-CV-371-WMC, 2017 WL 4339677 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 29, 2017).

Earlier this month, Canada’s transport minister announced that a drone had collided with a commercial aircraft, the first confirmed collision of its kind in North America. Thankfully, the aircraft sustained only minor damage and was able to land safely. But this recent incident, which many commentators believed was inevitable given the proliferation of consumer and commercial drones, highlights the potential risks associated with drone operations.

Last month, the solar eclipse captivated the United States and many consumers flocked to purchase solar eclipse glasses to safely observe the astronomical phenomenon. We previously reported how NASA issued a safety alert advising consumers on the proper eye protection they should seek. Now, some consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against a major online retailer for allegedly selling “unfit, extremely dangerous, and/or defective” solar eclipse glasses. As a result, the consumers allege “varying degrees of eye injury ranging from temporary discomfort to permanent blindness.”

Retailers are increasingly relying on drones to further automate delivery systems and inventory management, among many other uses. The Federal Aviation Administration recently predicted that nearly 4 million drones will be operating in the U.S. by the year 2021.

Hunton & Williams Insurance Coverage attorneys Syed Ahmad and Geoffrey Fehling, with co-author Robert Hopson of Lockton Companies, recently published an article in Unmanned Aerial Online providing an overview of available insurance coverage for commercial drones and several coverage issues to consider when buying ...

August was a busy month in the world of recalls. First, the end of August ushered in a hefty $5.7 million civil penalty against a major retailer in the United States. The retailer was allegedly selling and distributing recalled products and has agreed, in addition to the civil penalty, to maintain a compliance program and a system of internal controls and procedures. The CPSC voted 4 to 1 to accept the settlement, with Acting Chairman Buerkle voting to accept a lower civil penalty.

Liability insurance policies generally have an exclusion barring coverage for claims brought by the insured’s own employees. These exclusions usually do not bar coverage, however, when claims are brought by an employee of one insured against another insured. This scenario occurs frequently, especially for companies in the retail industry, who are usually one of multiple insureds under a single policy and are susceptible to being sued by another insured’s employees.

In late May 2017, the American Law Institute met to approve the Proposed Final Draft of the first ever Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance—the culmination of over seven years of work on this project. Not surprisingly, many of the issues discussed in the Restatement have been hotly contested by insurers. The proposed Restatement is important for retail industry insureds because courts around the country may look to this new Restatement in ruling on common insurance coverage disputes arising out of product liability actions, recalls and environmental contamination. For example, some of the most hotly debated sections of the proposed Restatement include, (1) policy interpretation principles, such as when a term is deemed ambiguous; (2) the standard for determining the insurer’s duty to defend; (3) the insurer’s duty to make reasonable settlement decisions; and (4) the allocation of liability in long-tail environmental claims.

Many retailers today face an increasing risk related to product recalls, which can result in extensive losses and a variety of liability claims. For example, a major supplier of meats was recently forced to recall more than seven million pounds of its product after customers found bone fragments and pieces of cartilage in their hot dogs and sausages. The large scope of this recall, and the associated challenges, is by no means unique to this company. Specialized insurance policies should provide protection to minimize most recall losses and exposure from liability claims. However, insurers often seek to rescind recall policies by asking courts to void the policies from their inception, meaning that the polices would not provide any coverage for any pending or future claims. A large number of these recall claims are being brought under New York law.

On July 26, 2017, an amusement ride named “Fire Ball” at the Ohio State Fair broke apart, killing one passenger and injuring seven others. This deadly incident may trigger a CPSC investigation into the matter.

Prior to 1981, the CPSC exercised jurisdiction over all amusement rides. But after several high-profile cases challenged the CPSC’s jurisdiction over amusement rides with mixed results, an amusement parks trade group successfully lobbied Congress to exempt stationary amusement rides from the CPSC’s jurisdiction. In 1981, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Amendments, which amended the definition of “consumer product” to explicitly exempt stationary amusement rides.

June commenced with another massive civil penalty. A manufacturer agreed to pay a $5.2 million civil penalty and maintain a compliance program for allegedly failing to immediately report defective floorboards in recreational off-highway vehicles. In a three-year period, the manufacturer received over 400 reports of floorboards cracking or breaking in one vehicle model and over 150 similar reports in two other models. Once the manufacturer filed its report, it allegedly underreported the number of floorboard incidents associated with one model and failed to identify altogether the floorboard incidents associated with the two other models. These omissions, according to CPSC staff, constituted a material misrepresentation. The CPSC accepted the settlement by a 4-to-1 vote.

Recently, HoneyBaked Foods, Inc., Wornick Foods and Foster Farms have been in the news because of different kinds of contamination claims. Syed Ahmad and Matthew McLellan, attorneys on Hunton & Williams LLP’s Insurance Coverage Counseling and Litigation team, authored an article entitled A Primer On Insurance Coverage for Food Contamination Losses, which provides an overview of insurance protection for food contamination issues that retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers may encounter. The article describes the insurance coverage available under traditional ...

As reported on the Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog, data breach claims involving customer data can present an ever-increasing risk for many retailers and other companies. A recent case further supports efforts to recover the costs associated with such claims. Specifically, a panel of the Fourth Circuit confirmed that general liability policies can afford coverage for cyber-related liabilities, and ruled that an insurer had to pay attorneys’ fees to defend the policyholder in class action litigation in Travelers Indemnity Company v. Portal Healthcare Solutions, No. 14-1944. Syed Ahmad, a partner in the Hunton & Williams LLP insurance practice, was quoted in a Law360 article concerning the importance of this decision.

Large-scale food safety issues have been hard to miss in the news lately. Chipotle’s multi-state E. Coli outbreak and listeria monocytogenes found in samples of Blue Bell Creamery ice cream products are some of the recent examples. After a product recall, retailers and other companies involved must focus resources on finding out what went wrong, remedying the problem and rectifying the company image. Hunton & Williams Insurance Coverage Counseling and Litigation attorneys recently authored an article, Insureds Find Place to Roost in Foster Poultry Contamination Case