Within the last two months, three class action lawsuits have been filed in federal courts against companies that sell ingestible products containing cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical compound found in the cannabis plant, alleging that the products contain significantly less CBD than advertised.  Sellers of other food and supplement products facing this type of claim regarding their non-CBD products’ content have successfully argued that such claims are preempted by the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and its implementing regulations.  But the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved CBD as an ingestible ingredient, food or dietary supplement.  And while some states have followed the FDA’s lead, other states have legalized sales of ingestible, hemp-derived CBD products.  This can leave food, beverage, and supplement companies confused about what rules apply to CBD as an ingredient in ingestible products.

The first of the three class actions was filed on

Following passage and signature into law of California Assembly Bill 5 (“AB-5”), retailers should be aware of how the new law affects whether they can classify workers as independent contractors.

AB-5 codifies a decision last year by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles establishing the “ABC test” for determining whether workers can be classified as independent contractors for purposes of wage order claims, and extends the test beyond wage order claims to the California Labor Code, generally.  The new law takes effect January 1, 2020.

Although AB-5 is making headlines for its potential impact on the gig economy, the law may impact any business that uses independent contractors.  For retailers, this may include workers ranging from freelance artists to models.

Under AB-5 and the “ABC test,” a worker is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the

Last year saw a massive E. coli outbreak linked to romaine lettuce which left growers, packers and retailers struggling to identify root causes and assign liability – all while trying to protect end users from illness and injury.  To address the costs of contamination and recalls, food producers and manufacturers commonly obtain contamination insurance.  However, typical contamination policies cover only those losses incurred due to actual contamination, while arguably providing no coverage for recalls due to potential contamination.  A company that recalled its salads due to a risk that its romaine was contaminated with E. coli faces the likelihood that its insurer will claim the recall costs are not covered under the standard food contamination insurance policies – even though the recall was in the public’s best interest.  Food suppliers should evaluate whether there is a gap in their insurance coverage created by the limited language in certain contamination policies