Consumer Products Litigation & Regulation

Since 2008, our team has defended more than 1,000 class-action cases, achieved major victories, and established valuable legal precedents. For example, our winning defense in Turek v. General Mills led to the first published federal appellate decision on the scope of Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) preemption. We have also established precedent setting wins in class actions involving alleged failures to disclose, multifunction ingredient claims, nutritional claims, and packaging challenges. 

To keep our clients informed on emerging CPG litigation trends, our team tracks filings and notable rulings daily. Examples of terms and trends we have tracked and defended in recent years include: 

• “Natural”
• Slack fill 
• Baby food Ingredient claims 
• Serving size
• Place of origin
• Health claims and misrepresentation
• Harmful ingredients
• Lack of science/substantiation
• Sustainability
• Recyclability 

Any consumer-facing company that conducts business in California, from manufacturers to distributors and retailers, risks being targeted by citizen groups and private bounty hunters with Proposition 65 litigation. Our lawyers have defended a range of CPG companies, from Proposition 65 claims, including food and beverage, apparel, designer goods, and personal care products. We have defended claims regarding one or more of the following:

Our team represents clients against claims asserting the presence of trace and allegedly toxic substances, such as heavy metals and Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), in their food and CPG products. We defend all microcontaminant claims, including those involving:

U.S. states are increasingly enacting extended producer responsibility (EPR) and packaging laws that affect how businesses design, label, market, and manage products and packaging. These laws can impose far-reaching requirements related to packaging disposal, recyclability, producer registration, reporting, fees, source reduction, recycled-content standards, and consumer-facing instructions. 

Several states also regulate environmental marketing claims and other sustainability-related representations within or alongside their EPR and packaging frameworks. Our team counsels clients in this rapidly evolving area, helping companies assess compliance obligations, reduce enforcement and litigation risk, and align product, packaging, and marketing strategies with changing legal requirements. We advise on sustainability claims counseling and litigation defense; compliance with state EPR, packaging, recyclability, and labeling laws; packaging, label, and marketing review; producer registration, reporting, and fee obligations; and recycled-content, source-reduction, and disposal-instruction requirements.

Fortune 100 companies, emerging startups, trade associations, investors, and life science companies turn to our lawyers for strategic regulatory counsel on products regulated by the FDA and USDA. We advise on federal laws and regulations governing conventional foods and beverages, cosmetics and over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, infant formula and baby food, pet food and animal feed, medical foods, and emerging novel categories. 

Our team also counsels clients on state regulatory requirements, including California’s Proposition 65 and the growing patchwork of state laws addressing PFAS, food additive restrictions, labeling, ingredient requirements, product content limitations, packaging requirements, and extended producer responsibility laws.

Iconic toy and video game brands, emerging kid-tech startups, and early childhood education networks are among the organizations that engage our lawyers for strategic regulatory advice regarding products overseen by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). We provide comprehensive guidance on the stringent compliance frameworks imposed by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), including third-party testing protocols, Children’s Product Certificates (CPCs), and mandatory tracking label requirements. Our team counsels clients on risk mitigation, defect analysis, and reporting obligations under Section 15(b), as well as navigating corrective action plans and voluntary recalls.

Our team counsels and defense personal care companies in regulatory matters, consumer class actions, and Proposition 65 litigation. We advise cosmetic and personal care brands on compliance with the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), as well as related federal and state requirements governing product safety, labeling, substantiation, reporting, and ingredient disclosures.  

We also help clients assess and reduce litigation risk across the product life cycle, from formulation and packaging to marketing, advertising, and postmarket obligations. Our lawyers have defended significant consumer class actions and Proposition 65 matters involving alleged microcontaminants, labeling and marketing claims, ingredient disclosures, product performance representations, slack fill, and other alleged regulatory or consumer protection violations. 

Our U.S. team has formed a network with our U.K., EU, and Australian counterparts to address expanded regulatory and litigation risks in these jurisdictions. These areas have already adopted robust and exacting consumer protection regimes and are continually expanding their scope and reach with recent statutory enactments or legal development in class and representative actions, consumer protection enforcement, and product liability laws. Our US team is continuing to enhance our consumer protection service offerings by partnering with skilled practitioners and existing robust practices in the United Kingdom, European Union, and Australia.