May 29, 2014
Manatt’s Advertising, Marketing & Media practice was recognized as one of the nation’s leading practices for both advertising litigation and transactional work in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business.
Beyond the practice ratings, four of Manatt’s advertising lawyers were individually ranked as leading lawyers: Division Chair Linda Goldstein and New York attorneys Jeffrey Edelstein, Thomas Morrison and Marc Roth.
Chambers praised Manatt’s advertising team for its “stellar reputation in the field” and its “expertise across the advertising spectrum,” noting the practice’s “capacity to handle transactional and regulatory work as well as litigation.”
back to top
We proudly recognize our colleagues in Manatt’s national healthcare practice for their achievement in being named the winner of the Chambers USA 2014 Award for Excellence in the Healthcare Category.
Manatt partner Ivan Wasserman has been invited to participate as a panelist on a June 11th webinar hosted by the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and VIRGO titled “Avoiding Regulatory Pitfalls: GRAS, NDIs and Border Detention.”
The presenters will provide practical guidance to help mitigate potential legal and regulatory risks that can sideline dietary supplement products. In particular, the session will address Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) self-affirmation; discuss the difficult questions around NDI notifications; provide guidance for responding to questions from FDA field agents at U.S. borders; and emphasize what the industry has learned from the patterns of recent border detentions.
The webinar will be held from 2:00 – 4:00 pm EDT. For more information or to register for this event, click here.
The Governator has filed a $10 million suit alleging that Nevada-based Arnold Nutrition Group “brazenly stole and exploited” his likeness to market its products in violation of his right of publicity.
According to the complaint, Arnold Schwarzenegger “would never endorse or affiliate himself with any fitness or nutritional product without first undertaking rigorous research, testing and due diligence to ensure that the product is healthy and helpful to athletes and the general public.”
Schwarzenegger was never contacted by the company, he claimed, which has engaged in “shameful conduct” and “is committing a fraud on the public.”
The former governor and Mr. Universe filed his complaint in California state court claiming unfair competition and a violation of his publicity rights, seeking $10 million in damages.
Why it matters: While governor, Schwarzenegger signed into law an expansion of publicity rights for celebrities in the state. He has also sued to enforce his rights when a bobblehead doll version of himself, complete with machine gun, was put on the market. That case settled.
Vermont became the first state to enact labeling legislation for genetically modified organisms. The labeling requirement will take effect on July 1, 2016.
Although Connecticut and Maine previously enacted GMO labeling requirements, the laws in those states are not triggered until a specific number of neighboring states have enacted similar legislation.
Pursuant to Vermont’s law, fresh produce and processed foods offered for retail sale in the state must include special labeling if they are entirely or partially produced by genetic engineering. Fresh produce that contains ingredients enhanced by genetic engineering must carry a label designating them as “produced with genetic engineering.” Processed foods that contain one or more genetically engineered ingredients must include “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be produced with genetic engineering” or “produced with genetic engineering.”
In addition to mandating the genetic engineering label, the bill also prohibits GMO foods from concurrently using labels like “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” or “any words of similar import that would have a tendency to mislead a consumer.”
Excluded from the law’s coverage: meat or dairy products made from animals that were fed with genetically engineered ingredients or consumed genetically engineered feed. Restaurants are also exempt.
The state’s Attorney General has the authority to promulgate regulations and enforce the law. Violations of the law could lead to fines of up to $1,000 per day, per product.
Anticipating a legal challenge from the food industry, Vermont legislators built a $1.5 million legal fund into the law to pay for any “costs or liabilities” related to the legislation.
To read Vermont’s law, click here.
Why it matters: Now that Vermont has taken the leap and enacted legislation without a triggering event, will other states follow? GMO labeling laws are currently pending in 23 other states, including California and New York. Other states may take a wait-and-see approach, as the food industry has vowed to challenge the law in court.
The Online Interest-Based Advertising Accountability Program made its first referral to a government agency, by passing along information to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about SunTrust Bank’s refusal to participate in the Program.
Launched in 2011, the Accountability Program enforces the ad industry’s Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising. The OBA principles – developed by an industry coalition – require companies to provide consumers with notice and an opt-out mechanism when a third party collects their information and when an ad is based on that data.
While examining the Web site for SunTrust Bank Inc., the Accountability Program observed “what appeared to be third parties known to be engaged in collecting consumers’ web browsing activity in order to serve them interest-based ads.” However, the site was not providing real-time notice to consumers of the data collection or providing a way to opt out.
The Accountability Program sent SunTrust a letter of inquiry. But the Bank “declined repeatedly” to participate in the inquiry, writing, “Our institution is monitored by a sizeable number of both federal and state agencies and is subject to regulatory exams and reviews on an ongoing basis. Complying with these demands consumes all of our allocated resources.”
The Accountability Program then referred the Bank to the CFPB. “Pursuant to its policies and procedures, the Accountability Program has discretion to refer any company that refuses to participate to the appropriate government agency, in this case the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” the regulatory group said.
To read the Program’s press release about the referral, click here.
Why it matters: During its three years of enforcement, the Accountability Program has concluded 32 inquiries, all of which until now, were closed with 100 percent industry compliance. The referral of SunTrust Bank marks the first time that the CFPB has been notified.
Could California beat federal lawmakers to the punch when it comes to regulating data brokers?
Although federal lawmakers have spent months investigating, issuing reports, and discussing possible data broker related legislation, the California Senate recently approved a bill requiring online data brokers who sell consumer information to provide an opt-out mechanism and consumer access to the data.
S.B. 1348 would give California consumers the right to review the information owned by a data broker and request that it be permanently removed within 10 days. Once removed, the information could not be reposted or sold to a third party.
The proposal passed the Senate in a 24-to-8 vote and now moves to the State Assembly for consideration.
The proposed law – which would cover data collected as of Jan. 1, 2015 – includes a private right of action with damages of $1,000 per violation, plus attorneys’ fees.
Backed by privacy rights groups, the bill faces opposition from entities such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the Direct Marketing Association.
To read S.B. 1348, click here.
Why it matters: Data brokers have been in the spotlight and have faced potential regulation for several months. After conducting a yearlong investigation, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) released a report, in which he claimed to be “revolted” by some of the industry’s practices. A second report from the Government Accountability Office recently recommended that federal legislation be passed to create baseline privacy rules for data collection, sale, and use, which has led many to speculate that regulation of the industry is a matter of when, not if. But with no actual movement by Congress, California could step in with its own law.
On May 2, 2014, FDA Week quoted Ivan Wasserman in an article about Vermont’s newly passed labeling requirements for genetically engineered (GE) foods and the potential legal challenges that may follow.
According to Ivan, companies will most likely bring a First Amendment challenge against the labeling requirements, and Vermont will have to provide a strong argument to compel companies to disclose that information. “One could imagine a First Amendment challenge brought to any law that compels companies to add labeling to their products...you can’t just compel speech just because people find it interesting. There has to be a legitimate purpose for it,” he said.
In case you missed any, here are our top 10 most widely read stories in April:
1. “Actress Sues for $6M Over a Single Tweet Including Her Image”
2. “ANA, IAB Support Self-Regulation for Privacy Issues”
3. “SPECIAL FOCUS: Supreme Court Adopts Broad Standing Test for False Advertising Plaintiffs”
4. “Pinterest Promotion Investigated by FTC”
5. “Samsung Bears the Brunt of Obama, Ortiz Selfie Controversy”
6. “COPPA + State Law = Privacy Protection for Teens”
7. “Settlements in 2nd Circuit’s Transformative Use Case, Dispute Between Beastie Boys and GoldieBlox”
8. “Judge Judy Now the Plaintiff in a False Advertising Suit”
9. “Fruit or Fruit Flavors? NAD Recommends Changes to Ads”
10. “NARB: Use of Lash Inserts Not ‘Literally False’ Per Se”
Linda A. GoldsteinPartnerEmail212.790.4544
Jeffrey S. EdelsteinPartnerEmail212.790.4533
2015 Year in Review & What's on the Horizon for 2016 for Customer Engagement Compliance & Legislation
February 11, 2016Speakers: Marc Roth, Christine Reilly
WebinarFor more information
IFT Food Policy Impact
February 18, 2016Topic/Speaker: FDA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Defining NaturalIvan Wasserman
For more information
VMA's ADAPT Summit
February 21-23, 2016Topic/Speaker: What You Need to Know: New Federal Regulation Shakes Up the Native Advertising EcosystemLinda Goldstein
Laguna Niguel, CAFor more information
ERA Great Ideas Summit 2016
February 22-24, 2016Topic/Speaker: Matching Claims to the Evidence: Brainstorming With the ExpertsIvan Wasserman
For more information
AELJ Advertising Law Spring Symposium
February 26, 2016Topic/Speaker: False Advertising PanelJen Lavie
New York, NY
For more information
Natural Products Expo West
March 9-13, 2016Topic/Speaker: What is "Natural": Dissecting Public Commentary to the FDAIvan Wasserman
Anaheim, CAFor more information
Techlaw Institute 2016: The Digital Evolution
March 10-11, 2016 (San Francisco)
April 6-7, 2016 (New York)
Speaker: Marc RothFor more information
2016 Antitrust Law Spring Meeting
April 6-8, 2016
Speaker: Lauren AronsonWashington, D.C.For more information
Ranked Nationally in Tier 1 for Advertising Law 2010–2016
Recognized for Excellence in the areas of Advertising, Marketing and Media
Ranked Nationally for Marketing & Advertising 2009–2015
© 2016 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. All rights reserved.