David Klein

California Prop 65 Warning to be Amended?

January 14, 2021 by David Klein

On January 8, 2021, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) proposed to amend the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”). In 2016, OEHHA adopted new Article 6 Clear and Reasonable Warnings regulations, providing manufacturers with a “short-form” warning alternative that did not require manufacturers to identify any chemicals on their respective labels. Although it may have been OEHHA’s intention that short-form warnings were to be used only on products with limited label space, Prop 65 allowed manufacturers to use short-form warnings on all products, regardless of label size. The proposed amendments to the Prop 65 warning are an attempt to provide clarification to businesses that have made inquiries concerning the Article 6 labeling requirements, and to explain whether the short-form warnings may be used for food products.

What are the Prop 65 warning amendments?

[Read More]

Tapjoy Settles FTC Consumer Reward Investigation

January 11, 2021 by David Klein

On January 7, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it had settled its consumer reward investigation into the business practices of Tapjoy, Inc. (“Tapjoy”), a mobile advertising company, over allegations that Tapjoy failed to provide users with promised rewards featured in various mobile games and applications. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Tapjoy will be prohibited from misleading consumers about rewards that they can earn within mobile games. Tapjoy must also monitor and police its third-party advertiser partners to ensure that those partners deliver promised rewards to consumers.

What was alleged by the FTC?

[Read More]

CCPA for Dummies

January 7, 2021 by David Klein

Over the past three years, we have blogged extensively about the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA” or the “Act”) and the multiple amendments that have been made to it. All of the CCPA changes can make one’s head spin. “CCPA for Dummies” is an attempt to strip down the Act and make it easier to understand the regulations by highlighting its/their key elements.

[Read More]

How Sweepstakes Compliance Can Save Your Reputation

December 29, 2020 by David Klein

The popular TikTok content creator collective, “Not a Content House,” recently received some negative publicity for failing to reveal the winners of a sweepstakes by the promised deadline. Not a Content House is the ironic name of an all-girl team that lives together in Los Angeles where they collaborate on content posted on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. It is reported that on December 23, 2020, Not a Content House was to announce who the two lucky fans were that had won the sweepstakes and would be flown to Los Angeles to visit the all-female crew. When December 23, 2020 came and went without fans being told of the winners, people took to social media to accuse Not a Content House of running a scam. Not a Content House has since announced the contest winners and apologized for its late announcement.

This sweepstakes promotion is a case study in the role that sweepstakes compliance plays in determining whether a sweepstakes serves as the intended beneficial marketing tool that it is or a promotional blunder that causes reputational harm.

What are some of the key elements of Sweepstakes Compliance?

[Read More]

PPE Advertisements Lead to TCPA Fax Lawsuit

December 21, 2020 by David Klein

A class action lawsuit has been filed against a medical equipment seller for alleged violations of the junk fax provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The TCPA fax lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, arises from the alleged receipt of unsolicited fax advertisements for the sale of personal protective equipment (PPE), including facemasks.

How did the TCPA fax lawsuit’s subject advertisements allegedly violate the statute?

[Read More]

Six Companies Settle FTC CBD Marketing Regulation Violations

December 21, 2020 by David Klein

On December 17, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it had concluded its first enforcement action against six cannabidiol (“CBD”) companies (the “Sellers”), stemming from allegations that the Sellers had deceptively advertised their CBD-based products. The FTC alleged that the Sellers made a wide range of claims, including that their CBD products could treat serious health conditions, such as cancer, heart disease, hypertension, and Alzheimer’s disease, without providing any clinical support that they could do so. As a result of their FTC CBD marketing settlement, the Sellers are prohibited from making future deceptive advertising claims, are required to provide scientific evidence to support any health claims, and, for some of them, pay a substantial fine. Businesses that sell CBD products must be aware of FTC CBD marketing regulations when advertising, or risk FTC investigation.

What are FTC CBD Marketing Regulations?

[Read More]

New CCPA Modifications Released

December 18, 2020 by David Klein

The California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has provided notice of yet another round of proposed modifications to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). This fourth set of new CCPA modifications addresses the twenty (20) comments businesses submitted in response to the third set of modifications on October 12, 2020. The DOJ will accept written comments on the new CCPA modifications until 5:00 p.m. on December 28, 2020.

What are the new CCPA modifications?

[Read More]