Consumer Products Archives - Faegre Drinker on Products

Subject: Consumer Products

California Supreme Court Rejects Duty to Innovate

On August 3, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the closely watched Gilead Tenofovir Cases, No. S283862, — Cal.5th —, 2026 WL 2223748 (Cal. Aug. 3, 2026), rejecting the so-called “duty to innovate.” The court held, in a 6-1 decision, that “a drug manufacturer has no duty of care when deciding whether and when to develop and commercialize an allegedly safer alternative drug” to replace an admittedly nondefective drug. The decision is a significant victory for pharmaceutical manufacturers and carries substantial implications for product liability litigation across industries.

Background

The case arose from a Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding comprising more than 30,000 plaintiffs — HIV patients who took Gilead’s tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Plaintiffs did not claim TDF was defective; it is undisputedly a life-saving medication. Instead, they alleged Gilead unreasonably delayed bringing an alternative medication, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), to market, depriving them of a purportedly safer option and allegedly causing kidney, bone, or tooth injuries.

Continue reading “California Supreme Court Rejects Duty to Innovate”

New York’s Beauty Justice Act: Sweeping Changes Proposed for Cosmetics and Personal Care Products

New York lawmakers are advancing the Beauty Justice Act, one of the most comprehensive state-level efforts in the country to regulate cosmetics and personal care products. For in-house counsel at cosmetics and personal care companies, the bill is worth tracking now because it could affect product formulation, supplier oversight, labeling, and litigation risk well before any compliance deadline. The bill responds to growing concerns over consumer exposure to chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption, reproductive harm, allergies, and other health risks. Supporters argue that current federal law, including the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), does not go far enough. Framed as both a public health and environmental justice measure, the legislation aims to protect consumers in vulnerable communities disproportionately exposed to these products.

Background

The Beauty Justice Act remains pending before the New York Legislature; if enacted, its core product restrictions would apply beginning January 1, 2029. The bill would prohibit cosmetics and personal care products sold in New York from containing intentionally added chemicals on the bill’s restricted substances list. It would also require companies to evaluate whether ingredients listed as “fragrance,” “flavor,” “colorant,” or other functional classifications contain restricted chemicals, comply with contaminant thresholds such as lead limits, and monitor Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) rulemaking that may add substances to the restricted list over time. The bill targets numerous chemicals that have already faced scrutiny in other jurisdictions and regulatory frameworks, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), parabens, phthalates, certain dyes, and preservatives.

Continue reading “New York’s Beauty Justice Act: Sweeping Changes Proposed for Cosmetics and Personal Care Products”

What’s the Catch? Interpreting the “Catch-All” Provision of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled that a product vendor’s silence is not deceptive when the vendor has no duty to speak.

The “catch-all” provision of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) prohibits vendors of goods and services from “[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). In March 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that omissions do not count as “deceptive conduct” under the UTPCPL.

Continue reading “What’s the Catch? Interpreting the “Catch-All” Provision of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law”

How to Succeed in Business (in Philadelphia) Without Really Trying (Your Case There, Because Venue Isn’t Proper)

Venue rulings in Pennsylvania affect many defendants in products cases. Those incorporated here, and those sued on allegations that their products caused harm here, of course. And, for now at least, it includes corporate defendants registered to do business in Pennsylvania. They are subject to general jurisdiction, including for claims unrelated to the Commonwealth, under Pennsylvania’s unique “consent to jurisdiction” statute. That statute was upheld as consistent with due process in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023).

And with many serious personal injury cases being filed in Philadelphia – a venue described in a Mallory concurring opinion as “reputed to be especially favorable to tort plaintiffs” – the stakes involved in venue disputes are higher than ever. That is even more evident after several recently reported verdicts in product cases, one approaching $1 billion and one exceeding $2 billion.

Continue reading “How to Succeed in Business (in Philadelphia) Without Really Trying (Your Case There, Because Venue Isn’t Proper)”

Pressure is Rising: Continued Moves to Ban or Limit Natural Gas Appliances

We continue to track litigation and legislations involving proposed or enacted bans or limitations on natural gas appliances. As anticipated, this area continues to evolve, and we are finding increased litigation regarding the enforceability of such laws, as well as the safety of natural gas appliances. We previously discussed the efforts to electrify America’s natural gas infrastructure in various markets here. This article provides updates and explains several nuances to these electrification efforts.

Continue reading “Pressure is Rising: Continued Moves to Ban or Limit Natural Gas Appliances”

It’s All Up in the Air: Recent Moves to Ban or Limit Natural Gas Appliances

Citing the effects of carbon emissions on climate change and the potential for health risks, efforts to electrify America’s natural gas infrastructure are underway in various markets. Natural gas comprises primarily methane. Indoor appliances like gas stoves are also associated with emissions of nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. The electrification efforts are making an impact at local, state, and federal levels.

At a local level, cities including Berkeley in 2019, San Francisco in 2020, and New York City in 2021, have banned certain natural gas hookups in all new building construction. San Francisco’s 2020 legislation applied to new residential and commercial building construction and required use of all-electric power. The ordinance was estimated to cover about 60% of the city’s development pipeline. It followed a similar ordinance requiring all-electric construction for new municipal projects in San Francisco.

Continue reading “It’s All Up in the Air: Recent Moves to Ban or Limit Natural Gas Appliances”