In Brief: PCPC Seeks Member Solidarity; Goop Skin Care; Nu Skin Update; More

Swift passage of the federal Microbead-Free Waters Act in late 2015, amid mounting state and local legislation to ban plastic microbead use, is an example of how solidarity among Personal Care Products Council members can work in their favor to promote change, Chair Thia Breen suggested Feb. 29 at the trade group's annual meeting in Palm Beach, Fla. "It was PCPC members' commitment to collaboration that enabled us to rally with environmental groups, retailers, policymakers and other key stakeholders" on the issue, Breen said, calling the bill's passage in a gridlocked Congress a "major feat." Her remarks came at a time when draft legislation to update cosmetic regulations in the US – namely the Personal Care Products Safety Act and Cosmetic Modernization Amendments of 2015 – has divided industry along large and small business lines, setting the stage for negotiations to compromise on the two proposals Also see "PCPC: Cosmetic Legislation A Long Shot In 2016, But Objectives Are Clear" - HBW Insight, 2 March, 2016.. "When we speak with one voice, when we stand behind one idea, that's when our industry is the strongest," Breen said. The MFWA gives industry until July 1, 2017 to stop manufacturing plastic microbead-containing cosmetics and another year to cease sales, representing a friendlier phase-out schedule than laws enacted at the state and local levels, which the federal statute ostensibly preempts, though counties in New York have challenged the preemption clause in recent legal wrangling ([A#02160222001]).

Direct seller Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. expects final court approval in mid-2016 for a $47m payment to resolve a proposed shareholder class action alleging violations of federal securities laws, following a Feb. 18 court decision denying Nu Skin's motion to dismiss the complaint. According to a Feb. 23 release from boutique law firm Andrews & Springer LLC, plaintiffs claim the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its operations in China – which they suggest constitutes an unlawful pyramid-selling scheme – failing to disclose that Nu Skin revenues "would be significantly impacted when such practices came to light." In March 2014, an investigation by Chinese officials into Nu Skin's business in the country resulted in $540,000 in fines related to registration failures and unsubstantiated product claims, but no violations were cited regarding the company's multi-level marketing model Also see "China Probe Finds Issues With Nu Skin Compliance, Not Business Model" - HBW Insight, 31 March, 2014.