1. HBW Insight
  2. >>Beauty
  3. >>Policy & Regulation
  4. >>Legal

Class-Action Clock May Be Ticking For Ava Anderson Non Toxic

 
• By Ryan Nelson

While maintaining that a former supplier is at fault, "natural" pet-food maker Blue Buffalo announced in December a $32m settlement over allegations that ingredients found in its products directly conflict with its "True Blue" labeling and promotional message. The firm's plight could bode ill for Ava Anderson Non Toxic, which has admitted to controversial ingredient-labeling omissions that it attributes to supplier violations.

Ava Anderson Non Toxic's dissolution and recent finger-pointing to account for product labeling errors may not shelter the company from class actions in what continues to be a litigious climate for personal care.

In a Feb. 1 interview, Stephanie Blazewicz, a partner in Bryan Cave LLP's San Francisco office, noted similarities between cosmetic- and food-labeling issues targeted by class-action plaintiffs in recent years...

Read the full article – start your free trial today!

Join thousands of industry professionals who rely on HBW Insight for daily insights

  • Start your 7-day free trial
  • Explore trusted news, analysis, and insights
  • Access comprehensive global coverage
  • Enjoy instant access – no credit card required
Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber?

More from Legal

Supreme Court 1935 Ruling Limiting Executive Authority On Appointments ‘Unravels’ Today – DoJ

 
• By Malcolm Spicer

In complaint and response to motion to dismiss, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter’s and Alvaro Bedoya’s attorneys elaborate on Supreme Court ‘s 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. US. Administration attorneys, though, contend the ruling isn’t relevant to the current FTC.

Estee Lauder Faces Securities Fraud Suit After District Court Denies Motion To Dismiss

 
• By Eileen Francis

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York denied Estee Lauder’s motion to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit filed by shareholders who said the company concealed its reliance on a gray market retail revenue stream, which ultimately caused sales and the stock price to plunge.

Uncertainty Abounds With SEC Climate Reporting Rule Tied Up In Courts

 
• By Lauren Nardella

Despite questions surrounding the SEC rule, including disputes being litigated in the US Eighth Circuit, companies must prepare to meet the new climate disclosure requirements in addition to related mandates in California and abroad. Experts emphasize opportunities beyond compliance.

In Emergency Rule, California Bans All THCs In Hemp Products: Industry Asks, Where’s The Fire?

 
• By Malcolm Spicer

California authorities say predominance of retailers licensed to sell hemp are compliant with ban published effective on 3 October through emergency regulation. But hemp industry’s contesting the regulation in state court, arguing state authorities inappropriately used emergency action to change state law on hemp products legislature passed in 2021.

More from Policy & Regulation

Beauty Industry Not Taking Advantage Of CBP’s Duty Drawback – IBA Conference

 
• By Eileen Francis

US Customs and Border Protection’s program allowing companies to recoup fees for imported goods that were destroyed or exported is applicable in the case of most of President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, most cosmetic companies don’t make use of it.

Beauty Firms Confused By State EPR Laws Have New Resource: EPR Academy

 
• By Eileen Francis

Beauty and personal care companies are struggling with compliance with state Extended Producer Responsibility laws, given the outstanding number of stakeholders that have still not registered products with Oregon’s EPR law, the first to go into effect.

Supreme Court 1935 Ruling Limiting Executive Authority On Appointments ‘Unravels’ Today – DoJ

 
• By Malcolm Spicer

In complaint and response to motion to dismiss, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter’s and Alvaro Bedoya’s attorneys elaborate on Supreme Court ‘s 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. US. Administration attorneys, though, contend the ruling isn’t relevant to the current FTC.