As we reported on September 15,  several states have enacted or proposed laws related to the collection of sales tax from online retailers without a physical presence in those states, as required by United States Supreme Court case Quill v. North Dakota.  South Dakota’s current lawsuit against several internet retailers was specifically brought by the state to force reconsideration of Supreme Court precedent.

However, there is a small change that Congress may decide the issue before it reaches the Supreme Court, with three bills having been introduced and a fourth pending.

One of the three bills, cited as the “No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2016“, is more or less a proposal to codify the decision in Quill.  Needless to say, the states who have challenged Quill are highly opposed to this bill.

The other two bills, the “Marketplace Fairness Act of 2015” and the “Remote Transactions Parity Act of 2015“, both similarly propose a destination-based sales tax system which will allow states the authority to require the collection of sales tax from out-of-state retailers. Among a few differences, the former provides an exception for sellers who have $1,000,000 or less in gross annual sales while the latter does not.

A fourth proposal not yet formally introduced would base the taxability of purchases on the law of the seller’s location but at the tax rate of the buyer’s location.  The “Online Sales Simplification Act” would require the seller to collect and remit sales tax to

Litigants in a civil dispute often use subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, and discovery requests to obtain personal information about individuals who may not be present in the litigation. A request for documents and information that include personal information about third parties may conflict with legal obligations imposed upon an organization not to produce information.

For example, if an organization promises within its privacy policy that it will never share personal information with a “third party,” and does not include an exception for requests made in civil litigation or through judicial process, a consumer could argue that by producing information pursuant to a subpoena or discovery request an organization has violated its privacy policy and committed an unfair or deceptive practice in violation of federal or state law.

Read More

The Prop. 65 Clearinghouse held its annual conference in San Francisco recently, and the speakers and panelists had a number of recommendations for both retailers and manufacturers following the adoption of Proposition 65’s new warning regulations.

The New Warning Regulations

As we reported on September 7th, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has adopted new warning regulations which take effect in two years on August 30, 2018.  Businesses can choose to comply with either the current or new regulations in the interim, but all retailers and manufacturers who sell products in California should review their Prop. 65 compliance protocols to ensure that they will continue to comply.

The new regulations seek to put the primary responsibility for providing warnings on product manufacturers or suppliers, who must either label their products with any required warnings or provide notice and warning materials to retailers.

The regulations expressly provide, however, that parties can continue to contractually allocate who has responsibility for providing warnings. Retailers should therefore analyze and consider revising their terms and conditions to clarify who is responsible for providing warnings and in what manner, whether retailers will accept and post shelf warnings provided by vendors, and to whom the notice and warning materials should be sent.

Complying With New Warning Regulations

The first panel – which included the chief counsel of OEHHA, the presidents of two enforcement groups, an industry lobbyist, and a defense attorney — focused on some of the challenges that the new regulations

South Dakota and several online retailers are currently engaged in a battle over the state’s new internet sales tax law (SB 106) aimed at online businesses who sell products to South Dakota residents but which are not obligated to pay sales tax to the state.

Decades ago, during the internet’s infancy, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Quill v. N. Dakota that states are prohibited from requiring companies without a physical presence in those states to collect sales tax from its residents. Among the four internet retailers sued by South Dakota are the popular Overstock.com and Newegg.com.

The state acknowledges in its complaint that SB 106 is a violation of Supreme Court precedent. However, it has stated that the purpose of the suit is to facilitate Supreme Court review, because Quill is outdated in the internet age.

Several outcomes to the case are possible, including a grant of summary judgment for either of the parties with a determination of the applicability of Quill and the constitutionality of SB 106.  If South Dakota’s law is struck down as unconstitutional, other states may face legal challenges to their digital sales tax laws.  If it is upheld, more states are likely to pass such laws.

South Dakota’s suit is just one of several recent actions taken by states to “modernize” sales tax laws for application to online retailers.  Alabama has enacted its own law, which requires out-of-state retailers without a physical presence in the state to collect sales tax

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has adopted new Proposition 65 warning regulations.  The new regulations will take effect in two years, on August 30, 2018.  In the interim, businesses may choose to comply with either the current or new regulations.

Prop. 65 prohibits businesses from knowingly and intentionally exposing California consumers to a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm without first providing a “clear and reasonable warning.”  As we reported on a draft of the regulations in April 2016, the new regulations substantially change what constitutes a clear and reasonable warning.

Products with label warnings manufactured prior to the effective date of the new regulations would continue to receive protection from liability. Parties to existing settlement agreements or court-approved consent judgments also can continue to provide warnings that comply with those agreements or orders.

Regulations Seek to Reduce Burden on Retailers

The new regulations seek to put the primary responsibility for providing warnings on product manufacturers or suppliers, who must either label their products with any required warnings or provide notice and warning materials to retailers. The manufacturer or supplier must specifically identify the product requiring a warning, provide all necessary warning materials, receive written or electronic confirmation of receipt from the retailer’s authorized agent, and renew the notice every six months for the first year and annually thereafter.  The manufacturer or other supplier of a product must notify a retailer within 90 days if a new

A New York federal court recently held that defendant Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (“Alibaba”), which is notorious for allegedly enabling the sale of counterfeit products, did not violate federal racketeering law by selling allegedly counterfeit products on its e-commerce venues.

Alibaba owns and operates the popular shopping sites Alibaba.com, Taobao.com, and AliExpress.com, and generated $248 billion in gross merchandise volume in 2014 – more than Amazon and eBay combined. Luxury fashion retailers, including Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent, filed suit against Alibabi and seven other corporate entities that had roles in online platforms through which Chinese merchants could connect with consumers worldwide.

The lawsuit alleges that fourteen Chinese merchants, also named as defendants, sold counterfeit products bearing plaintiffs’ marks in the Alibaba marketplaces. It further alleges that the Alibaba defendants provided the online marketing, data collection, payment processing, financing, and shipping services necessary to sell the products, even though they knew or should have known that the merchant defendants were selling counterfeit goods.

On August 4, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Alibaba defendants’ motion to dismiss two claims asserted against them under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq. (“RICO”).

Plaintiffs’ first RICO claim was a substantive RICO claim brought pursuant to Section 1962(c), which makes it “unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in…interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s

A recent federal court ruling allows a class action lawsuit to proceed against luxury fashion retailer Jimmy Choo for violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA).  This ruling, which will likely be appealed, has important implications for other consumer class action lawsuits against retailers.

Jimmy Choo was accused of violating FACTA by printing credit card expiration dates on customer receipts in Wood v. J Choo USA, Inc., S.D. Fla. Case No. 15-cv-81487.  Jimmy Choo argued that the plaintiff had no standing to sue because she was not damaged when the retailer printed her credit card expiration date on her receipt. The court disagreed, holding that the consumer was sufficiently damaged to maintain the action as soon as soon as the receipt was printed.

Companies facing lawsuits alleging FACTA violations should be aware that although the U.S. Supreme Court held in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), that a plaintiff must show that an injury was both “concrete and particularized” and cannot rely on a procedural violation to allege injury in fact, there are instances where an injury may exist solely by virtue of a breach of a statutory prohibition.

Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida said that in certain circumstances—such as in this case involving Jimmy Choo—“the violation of a procedural right granted by statute” is sufficient to constitute injury for purposes of standing.

FACTA prohibits businesses from printing more than the

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says its final rule allowing outside groups to evaluate food additive risks will streamline its “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) reviews.

The agency recently released its GRAS final rule for its food additive program, switching reviews from a more formal but slower “petition-based” process to a voluntary “notification” process.  For retailers with private label food products, that means that they or their vendors can continue to convene their own expert panels to review the safety of many food additives, and provide notice of their findings to the FDA.

Under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excepted from the definition of a food additive.

The use of a food substance may be GRAS either through scientific procedures or, for a substance used in food before 1958, through experience based on common use in food, which requires a substantial history of consumption for food use by a significant number of consumers.

Rule adopts pilot voluntary notification program.

The FDA’s rule implements as final a pilot notification program under which food makers can convene their own expert panels to prepare GRAS reviews and provide notice to the

A new federal law will require food makers to disclose when foods contain genetically modified ingredients.

The law, which was recently signed by President Obama, will require such food products to be labeled with text, a symbol, or an electronic code readable by smartphone indicating the presence of GMOs. Small businesses will also have the option to label food products with a telephone number or Internet website directing customers to additional information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has two years to draft regulations concerning which products require such disclosure, and additional details concerning what food makers must do to comply. After the regulations are finalized, food makers will have at least another year before the law takes effect.

Law preempts state and local GMO labeling laws.

The federal law preempts a similar Vermont law, Act 120, that took effect in July, as well as any other state or local GMO disclosure laws. The Vermont Attorney General’s office has announced it will suspend enforcement of Act 120.

Critics of the federal law, including Vermont’s congressional delegation, argued that it falls short compared with Vermont’s tougher labeling law requiring all foods with GMO ingredients to be labeled “produced with genetic engineering.”

Supporters of the federal law, including many in the food industry, say it avoids a state-by-state patchwork of laws in favor of a national disclosure solution.

Law will be federally enforced, but may fuel private lawsuits.

The law will be administered and enforced by the federal government, through the USDA.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has finalized its regulations concerning operational drones, allowing retailers to start using drone delivery systems.

In making drones available for retail delivery use, the FAA has carved out a space for drones to operate without becoming an “air carrier” under federal law regulating air transportation.

As a result, drones can now be used to deliver cargo in the mainland United States, except in Washington D.C., or any U.S. territory if the cargo weighs less than a total of 55 pounds, the flight is conducted from the remote pilot’s visual line of sight, the drones fly a maximum speed of 100 mph, and gain a maximum of 400 feet.

The much anticipated drone regulations bode well for retailers and manufacturers making their way into the drone delivery space.  Just a couple of months ago, Switzerland’s postal service began testing out drone deliveries with Matternet, a company dedicated to creating and mastering drone delivery systems.

In the United States, Amazon has eagerly been preparing for favorable regulations to allow room for Amazon PrimeAir, a delivery system designed to get to customers in 30 minutes or less.

Drones must be flown by remote pilots during daylight hours

Before retailers can start operating delivery drones, the new FAA regulations require that there must be a remote pilot who holds a remote pilot certificate and conducts a pre-flight check before each flight.  The drone must remain in the pilot’s visual line of sight so that it can be readily seen without