Subject: Consumer Products

It’s an MDL World: Agreement is enough, or is it?

Share

The JPML held its second hearing of 2022 at the end of March. We addressed the results of the first hearing recently here, and further observed the JPML’s trend over the course of the last several years in forming fewer MDL proceedings each year. As we move further into 2022, it is clear this trend has continued.

In April, the JPML formed two new MDLs out of four total petitions, bringing the cumulative total of new MDLs in 2022 to four (out of seven petitions considered)—well below the typical quarterly pace for new MDLs, including that of 2021. Through its orders, the JPML provided insights into the circumstances that justify MDL formation, and those that do not. We briefly discuss these orders below:

Continue reading “It’s an MDL World: Agreement is enough, or is it?”

Plaintiff Shoots an Airball Against Nike in Design Defect Case

Share

In the wake of March Madness, it is only appropriate to call attention to an opinion laced with pithy basketball puns. In Nachimovsky v. Nike, Inc. et al., 2022 WL 943421 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2022), Plaintiff injured his knee during a recreational basketball game. Blaming this injury on his new sneakers, he called foul and brought claims for negligence and products liability—specifically design defect—against Nike, which designed and manufactured the sneakers, and Shoe Fitters, which sold the sneakers.

To support his claims, Plaintiff proffered two one-page letters from a podiatrist who concluded that the sneakers were defective and a “major contributing factor” to Plaintiff’s injury. Nike (and Shoe Fitters, by incorporation) responded with a full-court press, seeking to exclude the podiatrist’s opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, arguing that they were not reliable and he was not qualified to offer them.

Continue reading “Plaintiff Shoots an Airball Against Nike in Design Defect Case”

Snapchat’s ‘Speed Filter’: Georgia Supreme Court Revives Negligent Design Claim

Share

On March 15, 2022, the Georgia Supreme Court revived a negligent design claim that had been brought against Snapchat, Inc. (n/k/a Snap, Inc.) involving Snap’s “Speed Filter.”  As one of the few decisions across the country addressing products liability law in the context of platform “products” (more accurately categorized as services) such as Snapchat, the opinion provides a glimpse of the sort of issues that other courts may soon be required to address.

The Factual & Procedural Background:

Plaintiffs Wentworth and Karen Maynard alleged that Defendant Christal McGee was using Snapchat’s “Speed Filter” and driving over 100 miles per hour when she rear-ended them, causing severe injuries.  The “Speed Filter” is a feature that allows the user to record their real-life speed on a photo or video and share it with other users.  Plaintiffs sued Snap as well, alleging that Snap had negligently designed the “Speed Filter” because the filter promoted unsafe driving and encouraged dangerous behavior.

Continue reading “Snapchat’s ‘Speed Filter’: Georgia Supreme Court Revives Negligent Design Claim”

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Pet Food False Ad Proposed Class Action

Share

The Tenth Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a proposed class action against a dog food manufacturer, finding that the putative class claims were nonactionable puffery and overly subjective.

In Renfro, et al. v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., et al., No. 20-1274, pet owner plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against Champion Petfoods alleging that the packaging for some of its dog food brands were false and misleading. Specifically, plaintiffs asserted claims for violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and negligence.

Continue reading “Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Pet Food False Ad Proposed Class Action”

PFAS in Cosmetics Continue to Draw Attention as Litigation and Legislation Efforts Mount

Share

In June 2021, we published Cosmetics Companies: Beware of PFAS, highlighting the recently introduced No PFAS In Cosmetics Act and recommending that cosmetics and personal-care product companies examine their products and supply chains to determine if, when, and where PFAS may affect their businesses. As anticipated, PFAS in cosmetics has continued to draw attention, with the filing of at least two lawsuits and the anticipated enactment of PFAS legislation in several states.

The No PFAS In Cosmetics Act, which seeks to ban the use of intentionally added per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in cosmetics, was introduced in the House on June 17, 2021. The bill has been assigned to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, but no hearing has been scheduled. Ultimately, the bill will require the Department of Health and Human Services to issue and finalize a rule banning the use of intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics. In the meantime, on February 2, 2022, over 30 senators sent a letter to President Biden requesting funding for Fiscal Year 2023 for PFAS research, regulatory efforts, and testing.

Continue reading “PFAS in Cosmetics Continue to Draw Attention as Litigation and Legislation Efforts Mount”

LG Chem Secures a Second Look at Jurisdictional Issues in NJ Vape Battery Suit

Share

The New Jersey Appellate Division has held that Korean company LG Chem Ltd. (“LG Chem”)will have another opportunity to dispute New Jersey’s jurisdiction over it in a product liability lawsuit concerning a vaping device battery.  The decision is based, in part, on the trial court’s failure to order jurisdictional discovery and convene an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed jurisdictional allegations before deciding LG Chem’s pre-answer motion to dismiss.  This case underscores that in New Jersey, the standard governing motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, unlike other bases, requires the court to look outside the disputed pleadings alone.

The New Jersey plaintiff alleged he was injured when a lithium-ion battery manufactured by LG Chem exploded in his pocket.  Plaintiff attempted to serve process on LG Chem through two of its U.S.-based subsidiaries, LG Chem America, Inc. (LGCAI) and LG Chem Michigan, Inc. (LGCMI).  The agents of both refused to accept service.

Continue reading “LG Chem Secures a Second Look at Jurisdictional Issues in NJ Vape Battery Suit”