Bryan Cave Digest


Main Content

FDA Extends Comment Period on Food Transportation Rule

FDA has extended the public comment period on its proposed “Sanitary Transportation of human and Animal Food” rule, which was originally published on February 15, 2014.  The new due date for comments is July 30, 2014, sixty days from the original due date of May 31, 2014.

Information regarding the proposed rule can be found here.  This rule is part of a series of new rules proposed by FDA to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011.  As further explained by FDA:

The goal of the proposed rule on the sanitary transportation of human and animal food is to prevent practices that create food safety risks, such as failure to properly refrigerate food, inadequate cleaning of vehicles between loads, and failure to properly protect food during transportation. The proposed rule addresses the sanitary transportation of both human and animal food traveling via motor or rail vehicle by establishing

Using Expert Testimony And Survey Data To Defeat Consumer Class Actions.

May 19, 2014


A recent decision denying class certification in a cosmetics labeling action provides a useful roadmap for defendants in consumer products labeling class actions, such as food labeling cases.  These particular defendants used several of the strategies discussed in earlier blog posts, and the decision sends a shot across the bow of plaintiffs’ class counsel who bring such consumer fraud claims on the cheap in the hopes of a quick payout.

Representations About “24 Hour” Cosmetics.

Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, No. 12-CV-3000 AJB (S.D. Cal. 5/12/14), involves allegations under California’s consumer protection laws.  Those plaintiffs contend that lipstick and makeup labeled as “24HR” does not provide the promised 24-hour coverage, and they allege that they paid a premium for the products based on those representations.  The proposed class would have included all California consumers who purchased the lipstick or makeup for personal use until the date of

When Is Food “Unlawful” or not “Merchantable”: Court Ruling Further Confounds Food Labeling Suit Defendants

Phoenix Partner James Smith and San Francisco Associate Sara Ahmed authored a legal opinion letter published April 25 online by the Washington Legal Foundation regarding food labels. A recent recommendation from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California highlights the many difficulties and uncertainties that defendants face in food labeling class actions based on California law. “While this decision highlights the need for clarification regarding the UCL’s [California’s Unfair Competition Law] ‘unlawful’ prong, the implied warranty analysis is more troubling,” they wrote. “In essence, it has turned a warranty remedy designed to address situations where a consumer did not receive what she bargained for into strict liability without any showing of injury.” Click here to read their full article.

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.