Trump Administration Purports to Fire CPSC Commissioners
Despite Congress’s establishment of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) as an independent agency through the Consumer Product Safety Act, recent events indicate that the Trump Administration is taking further action to ensure its accountability to the president alone. Most recently, on May 8, 2025, President Trump purportedly terminated three of the CPSC’s five Commissioners. According to formal statements from Commissioners Richard Trumka, Jr., Alexander-Hoehn Saric, and Mary T. Boyle—all Democratic appointees—the purported terminations followed their efforts to prevent workforce reductions at the Commission and their opposition to the appointment of two staffers from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
For some, this news is unsurprising. From the outset of the Trump presidency, the Administration took an unprecedented stance against “so-called independent agencies,” vowing to enforce “sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people.” When considering the fact that the Trump administration recently removed independent commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), it appeared to only be a matter of time before the Administration implemented similar changes at the CPSC. Only a few months prior, leaked documents from the Office of Management and Budget proposed to absorb the functions of the CPSC into the Department of Health, suggesting the Trump Administration may be considering a complete restructuring of the agency. There are questions as to whether the Administration has the authority to make these changes and challenges are all but guaranteed, creating a great deal of uncertainty for the CPSC and the companies that have pending matters before it.
What is Next for the CPSC?
The future of the CPSC remains uncertain, though for now it is expected that the remaining Commissioner, Acting Chair, and staff will endeavor to continue the CPSC’s mission.
Challenges to the recent terminations are inevitable. Commissioner Alexander Hoehn-Saric—who served as chair of the CPSC from October 2021 to January 2025, with a fixed term lasting until October 2027—stated that “[t]he President’s action is unlawful and is part of this Administration’s efforts to eliminate federal agencies, personnel, and policies that have made Americans safer,” He also said that his termination was an “illegal attempt to remove me from the CPSC [and] happened immediately after my colleagues and I took steps to advance our safety work and protect our staff from arbitrary firings.” Commissioner Richard Trumka, Jr. echoed similar sentiments, noting his fixed term does not expire until October of 2028, and that “Unfortunately for the President, he did not have the authority to fire me.” Both Commissioners Hoehn-Saric and Trumka vowed to file lawsuits challenging the terminations. Commissioner Boyle, while less direct, signaled that she may also do the same, noting: “Until my term as commissioner concludes, . . . I will use my voice to speak out on behalf of safety.” Despite these claims, the CPSC website catalogs Hoehn-Saric, Trumka, and Boyle as former commissioners, listing Douglas Dziak as the sole commissioner and Peter Feldman as the Acting Chair for the multi-member agency.
The legal challenges to these actions will likely focus on statutory removal-for-cause protections typically applicable to Commissioners at independent agencies. But, as is the case with similar litigation involving the FTC and NLRB, such challenges will take time. Thus, it will likely be “business as usual” at the Commission while the challenges wind their way through the courts.
China Releases Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection by China Customs in 2024 – China Facing Imported Counterfeits Due to Manufacturing Moving to Other Countries
On April 23, 2025, China’s General Administration of Customs releases their Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection by China Customs in 2024 (2024年中国海关知识产权保护典型案例). In contrast to prior years, Customs, in explaining the cases, mentioned two new trends. The first is the export of high-tech products infringing Chinese-owned IP due to the “gradual shift of China’s export momentum from Made in China to Created in China.” The second is that China now needs to block imports of counterfeits due to the “industrial transfer of some labor-intensive commodities.”
A translation follows. The original text is available here (Chinese only).
Case 1: Shenzhen Customs introduced technical investigators to investigate and handle a case of photovoltaic equipment infringement
In September 2024, a new energy equipment company in Shenzhen discovered that a batch of photovoltaic production equipment suspected of infringing its patent right of “a lateral upper and lower boat device” was about to be exported, with a value of RMB 10.79 million, and submitted an application for intellectual property protection to Shenzhen Customs. After reviewing, Shenzhen Customs immediately initiated the protection procedure based on the application, implemented control on the batch of goods and suspended customs clearance. In view of the complex characteristics of the patented technology involved in the goods, the high social attention of the case, and the parties’ disputes over the facts of infringement, Dapeng Customs under Shenzhen Customs contacted the China (Shenzhen) Intellectual Property Protection Center and innovatively introduced technical investigators to assist in law enforcement. Relying on its professional assistance, customs inspection personnel accurately locked the physical goods inspection target, scientifically formulated field inspection plans, and rigorously implemented inspection, evidence collection and detention procedures. This innovative measure not only effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the right holder, but also minimized the losses that may be caused to the parties by risks such as damage to cargo loading and unloading and delayed delivery. At present, the right holder has filed a lawsuit with the court based on the evidence obtained by the customs inspection.
This case is a typical example of the first successful introduction of technical investigators to implement patent customs protection in the national customs system. The technical investigators, based on the claims and instructions of the patents involved, assisted the customs in inspecting and collecting evidence on the structural components in the equipment related to the patent technology involved. While protecting the rights of the right holder to view the goods, it also further shortened the inspection time and protected the interests of the consignor. It fully demonstrated the professional support role of the technical investigation mechanism for customs protection measures, accumulated valuable experience for the customs system to carry out in-depth patent protection work, and has important demonstration significance for further improving the level of customs protection of intellectual property rights.
Case 2: Shanghai Customs seized a series of infringing foreign trade “new three items” products
In March 2024, the Waigaoqiao Port Customs under Shanghai Customs found 737 solar panels declared as “unbranded” during an inspection of a batch of exported solar panels, suspected of infringing the trademark SUNTECH and graphics, with a value of RMB 243,800. Subsequently, Shanghai Customs further sorted out the export information of photovoltaic products such as solar panels, and seized a total of 2,480 solar panels suspected of infringing the trademark right of “JINKO”, with a value of RMB 1.09 million. After confirmation by the right holder, the above-mentioned goods are all infringing goods. The customs detained the goods in accordance with the law, and made an administrative penalty decision to confiscate the infringing goods and impose a fine after filing an investigation.
In June 2024, Yangshan Customs under Shanghai Customs issued a control order based on the application of the right holder, and carried out precise interception of four batches of exported solar cell modules suspected of infringing its patent rights. 13,730 solar cell modules suspected of infringing its patent rights were seized, with a value of RMB 6.28 million. The customs detained the goods in accordance with the law.
The “new three” of foreign trade, represented by new energy vehicles, lithium batteries, and photovoltaic products, have gained new export advantages with new technologies and new products, reflecting the gradual shift of China’s export momentum from Made in China to Created in China. Photovoltaic products, as the new energy application power supply for the green and low-carbon transformation of energy, have gradually become a “new business card” for stabilizing foreign trade. Customs cracks down on photovoltaic products that infringe trademark rights based on factors such as “high brand awareness, serious infringement status, and relatively clear infringement clues” to maintain corporate brand reputation; comprehensively uses the linkage processing mechanism of “risk control + comprehensive + on-site” to crack down on photovoltaic products that infringe patent rights, protect corporate scientific and technological innovation achievements and transformation and upgrading momentum, and contribute customs strength to the high-quality export of the “new three” products of foreign trade.
Case 3: Hangzhou Customs launched a rapid response mechanism for major cases to coordinate enforcement and seize infringing drill bits
In July 2024, Yiwu Customs under Hangzhou Customs found590,600 drill bits with the SKF and graphic trademark and 59,300 drill bits with the “DORMER” trademark when inspecting a batch of export goods. Due to the large number and high valuation of this batch of drill bits, the customs immediately activated the rapid response mechanism for major cases. After confirmation by the right holder, the batch of drill bits were all infringing goods. The customs detained the goods and filed a case for investigation in accordance with the law. The case handlers keenly noticed that the purchase transaction list and transfer records of the drill bits involved in the case submitted by the consignor were only 80,000 RMB, which was a big gap from the general market situation. They judged that 80,000 RMB was only a deposit, not the actual transaction price of the goods. The customs promptly fixed the key evidence involved in the case, such as the sales contract and freight entrustment agreement, assisted the public security organs in carrying out infringement identification and price identification, and actively promoted the public security organs to conduct criminal investigations. In October 2024, the public security organs formally filed a case for investigation. After the relevant departments determined that the batch of drill bits was worth RMB 955,700. The case is still under further investigation, and the public security organs have taken criminal coercive measures against the suspect.
The rapid response mechanism for major cases is an effective means for customs to deal with cases with large numbers or case values, strong public response, public opinion attention, and involving major or sensitive commodities. In this case, the customs case officers, relying on their rich experience in handling cases, promptly activated the rapid response mechanism for major cases and smoothly promoted the public security organs to file a case. This is a typical case in which customs and public security organs deepened the “enforcement connection” of intellectual property protection and jointly cracked down on infringement and illegal criminal activities throughout the chain.
Case 4: Xiamen Customs builds a strong “entry” protection network to seize a series of infringing condiments
In April 2024, Quanzhou Customs under Xiamen Customs found 139,100 bags of sour soup powder, monosodium glutamate, fried chicken powder and other condiments using the “KNORR” and “AJINOMOTO” trademarks when inspecting a batch of export goods. After confirmation by the right holder, the above-mentioned goods were infringing goods. The customs detained the goods in accordance with the law, and made an administrative penalty decision to confiscate the infringing goods and impose a fine after filing an investigation. While investigating the case, Xiamen Customs focused on “imported” infringing goods, formed an expert team to carry out special infringement risk assessment, screened customs clearance data and case information, conducted a comprehensive analysis of route characteristics and logistics trends, extracted high-risk infringement characteristics, and strengthened control and analysis of key commodities. In June and November of the same year, a total of 213,600 bags of chicken essence that infringed the exclusive rights of the “AJINOMOTO” and “Maggi” trademarks were seized again.
”Food is the first necessity of the people, and food safety is the first priority.” Food safety is always the top priority in the field of people’s livelihood. In this series of cases, the customs started with one infringement case that was discovered, screened high-risk commodities through big data analysis, and conducted special control. Two batches of similar infringing condiments were discovered one after another, effectively blocking the infringing goods from entering the international market, which reflects the customs’ implementation of the “no strictest, only stricter” law enforcement standard in the field of food safety. This series of cases effectively safeguards the health and safety of consumers and the international reputation of Chinese products, and is a typical example of the customs’ heavy blow to “imported” infringing commodities.
Case 5: Beijing Customs and other customs promote integrated protection to escort cultural and creative products to go overseas
In December 2024, Beijing Customs carried out precise training for Beijing Pop Mart Cultural and Creative Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Pop Mart), and analyzed the industry and regional infringement trends in detail for the infringement of cultural and creative enterprises in the jurisdiction, extracted the characteristics of the categories, channels and trading countries of infringing goods, and carried out cross-customs information sharing with the help of the intellectual property customs protection working group mechanism, and assisted relevant customs in strengthening the analysis and control of infringement risks. In the same month, customs in many places successively seized 9 batches and 140,000 pieces of cultural and creative products suspected of infringing the copyright of “Labubu” and other copyrights, with a value of RMB 170,000.
In July 2024, the General Administration of Customs established a working group mechanism for customs protection of intellectual property rights, and local customs shared information, studied clues, and established an integrated intellectual property protection pattern. As a representative enterprise of China’s trendy culture “going overseas”, Pop Mart has been in short supply in Southeast Asian countries as China’s cultural and creative IP has increased its global influence. In this case, the customs encouraged cultural and creative enterprises to carry out customs filing, improve the effectiveness of rights protection, and form a strong joint force to combat infringement and protect innovation through cross-customs coordinated law enforcement. This case is a typical example of customs deepening the integrated protection of intellectual property rights and escorting cultural and creative products “going overseas”.
Case 6: Guangzhou Customs seized a series of cases involving imported infringing sporting goods
In 2024, there will be a large number of international sports events, and the risk of infringement of sports goods will increase. In January 2024, Nansha Customs under Guangzhou Customs found 13,000 footballs with trademarks such as “MOLTEN”, “ERREA” and “KIPSTA” with a value of RMB 415,000 when inspecting the goods declared for import by a trading company. After investigating the case, Guangzhou Customs sorted out and controlled similar goods imported from the same country. In July of the same year, Panyu Customs under Guangzhou Customs found 3,079 footballs with the “MOLTEN” trademark when inspecting goods imported from the same country by another trading company. The goods were worth RMB 101,000. After confirmation by the right holder, the above-mentioned goods were all infringing goods. The customs detained the goods in accordance with the law, and made an administrative penalty decision to confiscate the infringing goods and impose a fine after filing an investigation.
With the industrial transfer of some labor-intensive commodities, the role of intellectual property protection in the import link has become increasingly important. Customs across the country adheres to the working concept of “strict protection, large-scale protection, fast protection, and common protection”. By refining the characteristics of infringement, analyzing the manifest information, locking the logistics routes, and implementing precise control, it effectively blocks the infringing sports goods from entering the domestic market, effectively maintains the normal trade order of the domestic market, and supports the development of China’s sports industry. This series of cases reflects the customs officers’ profound understanding and professionalism of protecting intellectual property rights, and is a typical case of customs actively combating infringement and illegal acts in the import link.
Case 7: Huangpu Customs and other customs agencies cooperated efficiently to seize the case of transshipping infringing sports shoes
In November 2024, Huangpu Customs received a report from the right holder that a batch of infringing sports shoes were about to be declared for export from the customs. Huangpu Customs gave full play to the two core advantages of data resources and data models, and used the customs’ intelligent risk control shipping trajectory monitoring and analysis function to track the container trajectory in real time. After discovering that the batch of goods had been shipped and left the port for Hong Kong, Huangpu Customs contacted Hong Kong Customs through the Guangdong Branch of the General Administration of Customs to monitor and intercept the container. Hong Kong Customs found out that the container had been transferred to Shenzhen for export, and immediately notified Shenzhen Customs of the information. Shenzhen Customs further found out that after the container changed ships midway, it successfully seized more than 13,000 pairs of infringing sports shoes using trademarks such as “TIMBERLAND”, with a value of RMB 235,800.
The Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Further Comprehensively Deepening Reform and Promoting Chinese-style Modernization, which was reviewed and approved at the Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee, proposed to “deepen cooperation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and strengthen the connection of rules and mechanisms”. In response to the new trend of drifting infringing goods, the customs of Guangdong and Hong Kong quickly shared risk information in cross-customs and cross-regional joint law enforcement, implemented control and interception at all levels, and cooperated in case investigations, forming a relatively mature customs protection and law enforcement cooperation mechanism for intellectual property rights. This case is a typical example of close cooperation between the customs of Guangdong and Hong Kong to protect intellectual property rights, reflecting the responsibility of customs to serve the high-quality development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.
Case 8: Qingdao and Ningbo Customs seized a series of cases involving infringing goods exported to African countries
In October 2024, Huangdao Customs under Qingdao Customs seized 68 infringing refrigerators in two batches exported to Libya, with a value of RMB 204,600, and refrigerators with the Pepsi graphic trademark logo. The customs quickly launched the “execution connection” mechanism and transferred the case to the public security organs. At present, the public security organs have merged the two cases for investigation.
In October 2024, Beilun Customs under Ningbo Customs found 1.19 million welding rods with the ” ” (graphic) trademark logo, with a value of RMB 178,500, when inspecting a batch of goods for export to Ghana. After confirmation by the right holder that the above goods were infringing goods, the customs quickly secured evidence and transferred the case to the public security department.
In September 2024, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation Summit was successfully held in Beijing. The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation-Beijing Action Plan (2025-2027) proposed to “expand cooperation with African customs in areas such as customs clearance facilitation, law enforcement and capacity building, and jointly combat infringement and counterfeiting” and other illegal and criminal acts. In September of the same year, the General Administration of Customs deployed the “Special Action for Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Africa (2024)” in customs across the country. The above cases fully demonstrated the law enforcement results of the special action, strengthened the intellectual property protection awareness of export enterprises, and maintained the good image of Chinese brands and “Made in China” in African countries. It is a concentrated reflection of the customs’ implementation of the national intellectual property power strategy and service to major power diplomacy.
Case 9: Chengdu, Urumqi and Gongbei Customs seized infringing goods from cross-border e-commerce channels
In January 2024, Chengdu Shuangliu Airport Customs under Chengdu Customs discovered suspected infringing boots using trademark logos such as “UGG” during an inspection of a batch of exported cross-border e-commerce goods. Subsequently, it strengthened control over the same enterprise and seized 473 pieces of shoes and bags using the same trademark logo, which were confirmed as infringing goods by the right holder.
In July 2024, Alashankou Customs under Urumqi Customs discovered 1,050 handbags using the “PINK” trademark logo during an inspection of a batch of exported cross-border e-commerce goods, which were confirmed as infringing goods by the right holder.
In December 2024, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Customs under the Gongbei Customs discovered 4,054 cigarettes with trademarks such as “Yunyan” and “MARLBORO” hidden in lamps during an inspection of a batch of exported cross-border e-commerce goods. They were confirmed as infringing goods by the right holder.
China’s cross-border e-commerce has grown from small to large in scale, and its quality has become stronger and better, and has become a new highlight in China’s foreign trade and global trade. Customs has strengthened its crackdown on infringing goods in cross-border e-commerce, effectively safeguarded the legitimate interests of right holders and consumers, and escorted the healthy and orderly development of the new cross-border e-commerce business. This series of cases is a typical example of customs strengthening intellectual property protection in the new cross-border e-commerce business.
Case 10: Nanjing, Tianjin and Dalian Customs accurately applied the “Criteria for Administrative Penalty Discretion of the Customs of the People’s Republic of China (III)” series of cases
In December 2023, Xinshengwei Customs under Nanjing Customs found that 141 jerseys and other goods used the MANCHESTER CITY 1894 and graphics trademark logo when inspecting a batch of exported goods, with a value of RMB 4,240.85. After confirmation by the right holder, the batch of goods was infringing goods, and the customs detained the goods and filed a case for investigation in accordance with the law. During the investigation of the case, the “Discretion Benchmarks for Administrative Penalties of the Customs of the People’s Republic of China (III)” (hereinafter referred to as “Discretion Benchmarks (III)”) were promulgated and implemented. The customs investigation determined that the party met the provisions of Article 7, paragraph 1, item 4 of the “Discretion Benchmarks (III)” that “the number of imported and exported goods that infringe intellectual property rights is less than 200 pieces and the value is less than 5,000 yuan, the party acknowledges in writing that the goods are infringing goods, voluntarily abandons the infringing goods and hands them over to the customs for handling in accordance with the law”, and made a decision not to impose administrative penalties in January 2024, ordering the party to immediately fulfill the obligation not to import and export infringing goods and educate them.
In December 2023, Xingang Customs under Tianjin Customs found 72 bicycles with the “FOREVER” trademark logo when inspecting a batch of export goods, with a value of RMB 9,299.06. After confirmation by the right holder, the above-mentioned goods were infringing goods, and the customs detained the goods and filed a case for investigation in accordance with the law. During the investigation of the case, the “Discretion Criteria (III)” was promulgated and implemented. The customs investigation determined that the party was a first-time offender, and met the provisions of Article 8 of the “Discretion Criteria (III)” that “the number of infringing goods imported and exported is less than 500 pieces and the value is less than 10,000 yuan, the party acknowledges in writing that the goods are infringing goods, voluntarily abandons the infringing goods and hands them over to the customs for handling in accordance with the law”. The first violation can be exempted from punishment. In January 2024, a decision was made not to impose administrative penalties, ordering the party to immediately fulfill the obligation not to import and export infringing goods and educate them.
In April 2024, Dayaowan Customs under Dalian Customs found that 10 sets of bearings used the “NTN” trademark when inspecting a batch of exported bearings, with a value of RMB 1,444. The right holder confirmed that the above-mentioned goods were infringing goods. The customs detained the goods and filed a case for investigation in accordance with the law. It was found that the party had been punished by the customs twice for exporting infringing goods within one year before the incident. It met the provisions of Article 12 of the Discretion Criteria (III) that “after being administratively punished by the customs for violating Article 25 of the “Regulations on the Implementation of Customs Administrative Penalties”, the same act of violating customs supervision regulations was committed within one year”. In June 2024, an administrative penalty of confiscating the infringing goods and imposing a fine of 25% of the value of the goods was imposed.
The Discretion Benchmark (III) is a specific measure for the customs to implement the decision-making arrangements of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on regulating administrative discretion, and provides a guiding and normative discretion benchmark for the customs to strictly, standardize and fairly handle intellectual property cases. Since the implementation of the Discretion Benchmark (III), the national customs have accurately applied different levels of discretion according to the facts, nature, circumstances and degree of social harm of the illegal acts, reflecting the legislative spirit of proportionate punishment and leniency and severity, which is of great significance to improving the fairness and transparency of administrative penalties, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, and promoting the standardization and professionalization of customs law enforcement.
Litigation Minute: Tough to Swallow: Increased State Regulation of and Attention on Contaminants in Food
What You Need to Know in a Minute or Less
Until recently, state regulators largely deferred to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to scrutinize and regulate contaminants in food, such as heavy metals. In the past several years, however, states have taken an increasingly active role in regulating foods, not only from the standpoint of what can be added to food (e.g., California’s 2023 food additive ban and a broader, more impactful 2025 additive ban in West Virginia) but also from the standpoint of unwanted contaminants in food.
This edition of Litigation Minute discusses some recent state laws and introduced bills that could provide fodder to class action plaintiffs to argue that foods are, for example, labeled in a false or misleading way or unsuitable for their intended use. In a minute or less, here is what you need to know about state laws on contaminants in food.
What Contaminants Are States Targeting?
To provide a sense of the types of laws emerging at the state level on contaminants in food, consider the following examples:
AB 899 in California and Rudy’s Law in Maryland require baby food companies to test every lot of baby food for heavy metals and publish the results on that testing on their website.
New York state has proposed action levels for heavy metals in spices of 0.21 parts per million (ppm) lead, 0.26 ppm cadmium, and 0.21 ppm inorganic arsenic.
Proposed legislation known as LD 130 in Maine would establish maximum levels for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, PFAS) in agricultural products.
According to Safer States, 19 states have passed 43 laws affecting substances used in food-contact materials (e.g., bisphenols, PFAS, ortho-phthalates, polystyrene); many of these laws have the aim of preventing these substances from becoming contaminants in food, as well as include goals that are environmentally focused.
How Did We Get Here?
Many of these state laws have been implemented in response to events like the WanaBana applesauce recall for lead, articles noting concerns regarding heavy metals in food in the popular press (e.g., Consumer Reports), blog postings, and social media activity.
The state laws also seek to fill a perceived void where FDA has not taken action or where its compliance with administrative procedure has led to an arguably slow response. For example, FDA initiated its Closer to Zero initiative in 2021 to identify ways to reduce exposure to heavy metals in food consumed by babies and young children. However, as of 1 May 2025, the only action level to have been finalized was lead in certain baby foods (i.e., fruit and vegetable purees, infant cereal, yogurt). FDA had planned on starting the process of setting action levels of arsenic and cadmium in 2025; however, that was prior to workforce reductions recommended by the current administration. It is not clear whether FDA will move forward on these initiatives in 2025. It is possible that continued lack of action at the FDA level will lead to more state laws in the future.
Many of these new state laws seem to have drawn some inspiration from California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, popularly known as Proposition 65. Proposition 65 until now had been a unique right-to-know law requiring that a company warn a consumer before exposing them to one of approximately 1,000 listed carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. However, states are now considering legislation similar to Proposition 65. For example, Missouri is currently considering a bill (HB 260) that would require warnings if certain contaminants (e.g., lead, cadmium) or FDA-approved color additives (e.g., Red 40) are in the product. Similarly, Texas has passed a law (SB 25) requiring warnings when certain ingredients (e.g., bleached flour), food additives (e.g., artificial sweeteners), or color additives are used in foods; the Texas law does not require warnings for contaminants.
Impact of State Laws on Litigation Risk
These state laws present plaintiffs with potential avenues for pursuing litigation. With respect to the AB 899 and Rudy’s Law disclosures for baby food, the publication of heavy metal test information could lead to challenges based on Proposition 65 in California. There are also examples of plaintiffs alleging that the presence of such contaminants conflicts with claims like “natural” or health-related claims. One of the earlier examples of this type of lawsuit was Doss v. General Mills, Inc., No. 19-12714 (11th Cir. May 20, 2020), in which the plaintiff alleged that claims like “packed with nutrients” and “wholesome” on Cheerios were rendered misleading by residues of glyphosate that were in compliance with federal law. Similarly, the New York proposed action limits on heavy metals in spices could be a basis for alleging that any spice exceeding those levels render the spices unsuitable for use in food. Class actions following recalls are fairly common.1
Takeaways
States’ increased activity in regulating food provides additional fodder for private plaintiffs seeking to challenge the labeling and safety of foods based on the presence of low levels of contaminants. These laws unfortunately give credence to the position that there is cause for concern, even when exposures are very low and present at levels consistent with Current Good Manufacturing Practices (i.e., industry best practices for producing safe and high-quality foods).
The next edition in this Litigation Minute series will focus on examples of class action litigation targeting contaminants, including a recent case trying and failing to allege that chocolate violated various state unfair business practices and similar laws due to the presence of heavy metals.
Footnotes
1 See, e.g., Willis v. Thomson Int’l Inc., 37-2020-00027164-CU-PL-CTL (Cal. Cnty. Ct. 2020) (filed after a Listeria monocytogenes recall on onions).
Also see websites like TopClassActions.com, which closely monitors product recalls with the expectation that recalls could evolve into class action litigation.
Damages on Default Judgment Not Barred by Absence of Precise Amount in Complaint
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision, allowing collection of actual damages in a default judgment where the complaint only sought damages “in an amount to be determined at trial.” AirDoctor, LLC v. Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co., Ltd., Case No. 24-215 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2025) (Friedland, J.) (Berzon, Kennelly JJ., concurring) (per curiam).
AirDoctor produces and sells air purification products, including branded filters designed specifically for its machines. In 2022, AirDoctor discovered that Xiamen Qichuang Trade had sold tens of thousands of unauthorized replacement filters that were marketed as compatible with AirDoctor products. These filters were allegedly labeled with AirDoctor’s registered trademarks, including AIRDOCTOR and ULTRAHEPA, without permission. AirDoctor asserted that these actions constituted trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and related state laws.
AirDoctor filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages “in an amount to be determined at trial.” Xiamen did not respond or appear in the litigation, and the court entered a default judgment against it. AirDoctor subsequently moved for approximately $2.5 million in actual damages, calculated based on the number of infringing units sold, along with $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The district court entered a default judgment in Air Doctor’s favor but declined to award damages or attorneys’ fees. The court reasoned that Fed. R. Civ. Pro 54(c) barred monetary relief in default judgments unless the complaint demanded a specific sum. Since AirDoctor’s complaint did not include a precise dollar amount, the court concluded that granting the requested monetary relief would exceed what was demanded in the pleadings and thus violate Rule 54(c). AirDoctor appealed.
The issue before the Ninth Circuit was whether the district court erred in interpreting Rule 54(c) to prohibit an award of actual damages in a default judgment where the complaint requested “damages in an amount to be determined at trial” but did not specify a fixed damages amount. Xiamen did not appear on appeal either.
The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that Rule 54(c) does not require a complaint to state a specific sum of damages for a court to award actual damages after a default judgment. The Court emphasized that the rule’s purpose is to prevent awards that are fundamentally different in kind or amount from those for which the defendant had been put on notice by the complaint, not to deny recovery when the type of relief was clearly identified, even if the amount was not. The Court noted that AirDoctor had clearly requested actual damages in its complaint and had indicated that the precise amount would be determined later, which was sufficient to give Xiamen fair notice of the relief sought. Relying on its 1974 decision in Henry v. Sneiders, the Court reaffirmed that actual damages may be awarded in default cases even if the complaint does not state a dollar figure, as long as the damages are of the same kind as those demanded.
The Ninth Circuit clarified that Rule 54(c) should not be read to require technical pleading of monetary amounts, especially in cases where the exact damages are unknown at the time of filing and are to be determined based on later evidence. The panel pointed out that this approach is consistent with decisions from other circuits, including the Seventh Circuit.
Practice Note: This decision affirms that in cases decided by default, a plaintiff can recover actual damages without having included a sum certain in its pleading, provided that the type of relief is sufficiently disclosed. Therefore, where actual damages are not immediately apparent at the time of filing a complaint, the plaintiff can comply with Rule 54(c) (while leaving the door open to maximize recovery) by pleading a prayer for recovery in an amount commensurate with findings at trial.
Maine Updates PFAS in Products Web Page, Includes Instructions for Submitting a CUU Proposal
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) updated its web page on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in products on May 2, 2025. The updated page includes links to the April 2025 final rule on products containing PFAS, instructions for submitting a currently unavoidable use (CUU) proposal, and frequently asked questions (FAQ). The FAQs address several questions related to CUU determinations, including:
Does my product sold in Maine qualify for a CUU determination?
How and when do I submit a CUU proposal?
What are the timelines for MDEP’s decision making on CUU proposals?
How will MDEP communicate the results of a proposal for CUU determination?
Will CUU determinations be public information?
What will the status of the pending CUU proposals be while MDEP is actively reviewing them and has yet to reach a decision?
As reported in our April 11, 2025, blog item, CUU proposals are due June 1, 2025, for products containing intentionally added PFAS that are within a prohibited category beginning January 1, 2026. Those categories are cleaning products; cookware; cosmetics; dental floss; juvenile products; menstruation products; textile articles (with exception); ski wax; upholstered furniture; and products listed that do not contain intentionally added PFAS but that are sold, offered for sale, or distributed for sale in a fluorinated container or in a container that otherwise contains intentionally added PFAS.
Leaked Budget Proposal Suggests Major Restructuring of Federal Health and Safety Agencies, Including the Consumer Product Safety Commission
A recently leaked and apparently genuine Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Budget “Passback” memorandum—the OMB’s official feedback mechanism for budget submissions from federal agencies—signals major changes to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) proposed discretionary budget for Fiscal Year 2026. Namely, the draft Passback shows the Trump administration is considering sweeping changes to the structure and funding of federal health and safety programs, including not only HHS but also the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Dated April 10, 2025, the draft Passback is marked “pre-decisional” and explicitly not intended for dissemination. According to its language, the proposed funding levels “reflect the reforms necessary to enable agencies to fulfill their statutory responsibilities in the most cost-effective manner possible,” while acknowledging that “many difficult decisions were necessary to reach the funding level provided in the Passback.” The Washington Post has verified the authenticity of the draft Passback, though no formal confirmation has been issued by the White House or the relevant agencies.
In the draft Passback, the Trump administration proposes cutting nearly one-third of the federal health department’s budget. This would be achieved primarily through the elimination of select programs and the consolidation of various health and safety-related agencies under a new umbrella entity: the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), overseen by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Among the potentially affected agencies is the CPSC, an independent, bipartisan regulatory body established by Congress during the Nixon administration in 1972 through the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The CPSC is tasked with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with consumer products. Under the proposed restructuring, the CPSC’s functions and staff would be absorbed into a newly created “Assistant Secretary for Consumer Product Safety” within the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The draft Passback also outlines a reduction in funding for administrative and support functions, stating that those responsibilities could be handled by existing staff within the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The CPSC reported total budgetary resources of $174.3 million in FY 2024. Its operating plan for FY 2025—last revised on February 25, 2025—requests $151 million at the Continuing Resolution level and $183.05 million under the President’s proposed budget. By contrast the FY 2025 budget for the Immediate of Office of the Secretary was $15.2 million. How the proposed restructuring would affect these appropriations remains unclear.
What Is Next for the CPSC?
The future of the CPSC remains uncertain. The CPSC is an independent agency created and empowered through congressional legislation. As only Congress has historically had the power to create and eliminate independent agencies, this draft Passback raises questions regarding whether the executive branch has the necessary authority to actually do what it proposes.
The CPSA mandated the CPSC’s creation in 1972, which was expanded in 2008 through the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). Traditionally, these enacting legislations would have insulated the CPSC from unilateral intervention by the executive branch. However, this draft Passback, in combination with several recent executive orders, signals plans to reduce the independence of regulatory agencies and asserts a level of executive oversight that would depart from historical norms. These efforts raise constitutional questions, particularly ones regarding the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
These actions are likely to spark significant legal challenges. But with a Supreme Court that has reviewed and overturned related precedent, there is a possibility that these challenges may not succeed. Notably, the Court recently stayed a lower court ruling that reinstated Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board, and the matter is pending final disposition. Wilcox’s removal raises questions under Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), a landmark case that limited a president’s power to remove officers of independent agencies. That precedent may now be at risk. In its reply brief, the Trump administration leaves little doubt about its intentions: “Article II of the Constitution vests the ‘executive Power’—‘all of it’—in the President alone.”
In short, the possibility that the CPSC may be subject to restructuring cannot be ruled out. If implemented, the changes outlined in the draft Passback would mark a significant step toward increased executive oversight of independent agencies like the CPSC.
Prop 65: Changes to Short-Form Warnings Will Cause Long-Term Impacts
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently amended its regulations concerning requirements for consumer product warnings to qualify for “safe harbor” protection from enforcement actions brought under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”).
Prop 65 is a “right to know” law — it requires businesses to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” before knowingly and intentionally exposing consumers in California to a chemical listed as known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm. OEHHA, the lead agency implementing compliance regulations for Prop 65, has adopted certain regulations detailing specific language and methods for warnings that businesses can use to comply with Prop 65 — i.e., “safe harbor warnings.” See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25600, et seq.
On December 6, 2024, OEHHA issued a notice stating that the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved changes to the Prop 65 regulations for “short-form” warnings that OEHHA proposed on October 27, 2023, among other changes.
The effective date of the new regulations is January 1, 2025, but there is a three-year implementation period for businesses to transition to the new warning language (by January 1, 2028). As discussed further below, this final regulation largely follows OEHHA’s October 27, 2023, proposal.
New Required Content for Short-Form Warnings: Short-form warnings are not so short anymore[1]. The new regulations now require that short-form warnings identify at least one chemical for each applicable endpoint (i.e., cancer or reproductive harm) and additional language, of which businesses have the choice of two phrases. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25603(b). As further illustrated below, these changes are bound to have a substantial impact on businesses.
For example, short-form warnings for carcinogens only must now include one of the following phrases:
“Cancer risk from exposure to [name of chemical]. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
or
“Can expose you to [name of chemical], a carcinogen. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25603(b)(3)(A).
As another example, short-form warnings for both listed carcinogens and reproductive toxicants must include either of the two following phrases:
“Risk of cancer from exposure to [name of chemical] and reproductive harm from exposure to [name of chemical]. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
or
“Can expose you to [name of chemical], a carcinogen, and [name of chemical], a reproductive toxicant. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
See id. at § 25603(b)(3)(C).
According to OEHHA’s comments in its Final Statement of Reasons (“FSOR”) for the new regulations, these changes were made to provide consumers with more information about the warning being given, consistent with the long-form warning. FSOR, at 20. However, the changes will likely require businesses using the old short-form warnings on product labels, which are much shorter, to substantially redesign their labels to accommodate this new language.
Identification of Specific Chemicals: Perhaps the most controversial change is that the new regulations now require short-form warnings to name at least one chemical that is listed for cancer or reproductive harm. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25603; see also id., at § 25601 (b). Previously, only long-form warnings had to identify a specific chemical. In the FSOR, OEHHA states that it believes listing at least one chemical in short-form warnings is necessary to provide “consumers sufficient information to make informed decisions about their exposures to listed chemicals” and to discourage the widespread business practice of providing short-form warnings “prophylactically, as a litigation avoidance strategy.” FSOR, at 20. OEHHA also commented in its FSOR:
Under existing law, companies currently may provide a warning with no chemical name for a product that does not cause any significant exposure to a listed chemical, because they would rather apply a generic warning to everything rather than determine which of their products actually create such an exposure and which do not. This litigation-avoidance strategy does not serve the interests of the Act because it does not provide accurate information. By including a chemical, companies will be encouraged to actually determine which chemicals—if any—could expose consumers of their products.
Id., at 30-31.
This significant change may require businesses to reconsider their testing protocols and use of short-form warnings if they are unable to identify a specific carcinogen and/or reproductive toxicant. Regardless of how businesses work to comply with the new regulations, their risk of costly enforcement actions is now undoubtedly higher.
New Options for Warning Labels: Companies are no longer limited to using “WARNING”, and now have the option of using “CA WARNING” or “CALIFORNIA WARNING” instead. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25603. These options providebusinesses with the ability to identify the warnings as California-specific warnings, which may be beneficial for products that are also sold outside California. FSOR, at 45. Short-form warnings can also be given on any label size, provided the text is at least 6-point font and is “conspicuous” as defined in the regulations (i.e., “must be displayed with such conspicuousness as compared with other words, statements, designs or devices on the label, labeling, or sign, as to render the warning likely to be seen, read, and understood by an ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase or use”). Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25601(c). Under the new regulations, the warning no longer needs to be “in a type size no smaller than the largest type size used for other consumer information.” See id.
Requirements for Catalog and Internet Purchases: OEHHA initially proposed clarifying language for products ordered through a catalog, but that clarifying language was not incorporated into the final regulations. However, the proposed edits to clarify the labeling requirements for products ordered through the Internet were enacted. Specifically, OEHHA clarified that, for one of the warning methods for internet purchases, the warning must be provided on the product display page, not on the internet site generally. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25602(b).
Short-Form Warnings for Food Exposure: OEHHA also revised the regulations to specifically allow for a short-form warning for food products. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25607.2. As with the safe harbor warning for consumer products, the warning for food products must identify the name of at least one chemical that is a carcinogen and/or reproductive toxicant. Warnings for food products do not need to include the warning symbol required for consumer products (i.e., a yellow equilateral triangle with a bold black exclamation point).
Warnings for Passenger or Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Parts and Recreational Marine Vessels: Businesses involving passenger or off-highway motor vehicle parts and recreational marine vessel parts can comply with Prop 65 by warning for phthalates and lead and suggesting best handling practices on a sign no smaller than 5 inches by 5 inches placed at each retail point of sale or display of products. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, §§ 25607.51(a)(3), 25607.50(a)(3), and 25607.52. If a business chooses this form of warning, it may not add to, remove, or substitute the chemicals identified. Id. at §§ 25607.51(b) and 25607.53(b). If the product is sold through the internet or through a catalog, the business must provide a long-form or short-form warning on the webpage or in the catalog for its products.
Three-Year Transition Period: Businesses have three years — until January 1, 2028 — to transition to the new short-form warning requirements. Thus, short-form warnings on any products manufactured on or after January 1, 2028, must adhere to the new regulations to qualify for safe harbor protection. However, any products manufactured and labeled with the old “safe harbor” short-form warning language prior to January 1, 2028, may continue to be sold indefinitely without the need for relabeling. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25603(c).
Grace Period for Internet Retailers: Additionally, for internet purchases, a retailer is not responsible for posting or displaying the new warning online until 60 calendar days after the retailer receives a warning or written notice from the manufacturer that updates the short-form warning. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25602(b)(2). This provision is effective for purchases made before January 1, 2028. Id. Retailers who have been issued notices of violation for not updating their short-form warnings after notice from manufacturers may have success in challenging those violations under the new rule.
Key Changes:
Effective January 1, 2028, short-form warnings must include at least one chemical name for each applicable endpoint (i.e., cancer and/or reproductive toxicity).
Businesses now have the option of using “WARNING,” “CA WARNING” or “CALIFORNIA WARNING” in warnings.
The short-form warning can be used on any label size, provided the text is at least 6-point font and is “conspicuous” as defined in the regulations.
Short-form warnings can now be used on food products.
Alternative retail sign warning options for phthalates and lead for passenger or off-highway motor vehicle parts and recreational marine vessel parts are now available.
Businesses have until January 1, 2028, to transition to these revised short-form warning requirements on products manufactured and labeled on or after that date.
Any products manufactured and labeled before January 1, 2028, can have the old short-form warnings, regardless of when the products are sold.
60-day grace period for internet retailers during the three-year transition period.
[1] The prior iteration of the rule required that businesses provide a truly “short” warning – (e.g., “Cancer – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”).
Transatlantic Terminology: Skilled Artisan Could Equate UK, US Word Meanings
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board unpatentability determination, finding that a skilled artisan would have found the term “sterile” in a UK publication to mean the same as the term “sterilized” in the United States. Sage Products LLC v. Stewart, Case No. 23-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2025) (Reyna, Cunningham, Stark, JJ.)
Sage owns two patents related to a sterilized chlorhexidine product in a package, such as an applicator filled with an antiseptic composition for disinfecting skin. Becton, Dickinson and Company petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of both patents. The Board relied on four key pieces of prior art, including one that was a UK publication, to find the challenged claims unpatentable. In instituting the IPR and evaluating the petition, the Board construed the term “sterilized” to mean that “the component or composition has been subjected to a suitable sterilization process such that sterility can be validated.” In the final written decision, the Board found that a skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have known, through education and experience, that the term “sterile,” as used in the UK prior art publication, is equivalent to the term “sterilized,” as used in the US and particularly in the Sage patents. Reviewing the totality of the evidence before it, including both parties’ experts’ reports and testimony, the Board determined the challenged claims were unpatentable. Sage appealed.
The Federal Circuit declined to overturn the Board’s findings, affirming the Board’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art and their understanding of the term “sterilized” at the time of the invention. The Court found that the Board did not ignore or disregard evidence but properly weighed the evidence before it, concluding that a skilled artisan having the education and experience required by the Board’s definition would know the differences between the US and UK regulatory standards for “sterile” and therefore would know that UK references to “sterile” items would satisfy the challenged claims’ requirement for “sterilized” items.
Court Considers Measure of Damages in California CLRA Case for Deceptive “Made in USA” Claims
A federal jury in the Central District of California has awarded $2.36 million in damages to a consumer class, finding that R.C. Bigelow Inc., without limitation, violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and misrepresented that the company’s tea products as were “Manufactured in the USA 100% American Family Owned” and “America’s Classic.”
Here, consumers initiated a class action lawsuit against the tea company, alleging that its branding, packaging and advertising is deceptive because it expressly and/or implied states that its tea is wholly manufactured in America. The consumers further alleged that the products are comprised solely of foreign-sourced tea. They claimed that had they known the truth about the tea that they would not have made the same purchasing decisions.
In July 2023, the court certified a class comprised of all purchasers in California of at least one box of Bigelow tea containing the label at issue between 2017 and 2023.
The class action lawsuit argued that the teas at issue are made from tea leaves that are derived from a plant that are not grown or processed in the United States and are grown in places such as Sri Lanka and India.
The issues before the jurty at trial included whether the company engaged in unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts under the CLRA, whether the company breached its express warranty that the products were “Manufactured in the USA,” whether the company made the allegedly false statement knowingly or recklessly, and damages.
Despite the company argued that the labels were intended to reference the company’s U.S.-based blending and packaging facilities, the tea bags were manufactured in the United States, and the company owned a tea plantation in the U.S. However, the court found that the teas in question are grown and processed overseas, mostly in China, India, and Sri Lanka. The court further found that the teas undergo processing outside of the U.S. that “transformer” them from raw leaves into a consumable product. Thus, the court found that teas to be processed abroad.
The court held that the tea’s “[m]CLRA in the USA 100%” label was “literally false” because the great majority of the company’s tea is imported from overseas.
Following trial, the jury awarded a class of California tea purchasers $2.36 million in compensatory damages. No punitive damages were awarded.
A damages expert for the class attributed 11.3% of the company’s sales to the purported false label, asserting that consumers overpaid for the tea by $3.26 million. The expert testified that he conducted a study of hundreds of tea buyers and purportedly found that some of those surveyed were willing to pay more for a product that included phrases such as “Manufactured in USA 100% American-Family Owned.”
Takeaway: “Made in USA” representations are heavily policed by the Federal Trade Commission. The “Made in USA Labeling Rule” requires, in part, that for a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.; (i) final assembly or processing of the product must occur in the United States; (ii) all significant processing must occur in the U.S.; and (iii) all or virtually all ingredients or components must be made and sourced in the U.S. Additionally, the product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content. Stte attorneys general and private plaintiffs also aggressively pursue deceptive U.S. origin claims. More and more frequently, related representations become the subject of consumer class action demand letters and litigation pertaining to violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, amongst other applicable legal regulations. Importantly, here, the measure of damages for a “Made in the USA” claim was the likely increase in price attributable to eth alleged false representation of origin. This case underscores the importance of manufacturers and marketing that incorporate U.S. origin claims into their advertising, marketing and/or packaging to consult with a seasoned FTC attorney to limit liability exposure for failing to comply with applicable legal regulations, including, but not limited to, state and federal “Made in U.S.A.” requirements, and California’s CLRA.
EU Deforestation-Free Products Regulation (EUDR): Simplification is Taking Shape in EU Commission’s Guidance
On 15 April 2025, the European Commission issued a series of documents with a view to simplifying and amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on deforestation-free products (‘EUDR’).
In line with the broader simplification trend that marks the beginning of the second Von der Leyen Commission, the documents bring about an easing in reporting requirements as well as clarification. They are expected to bring about together a 30% reduction of administrative costs, and considerably reduce the number of due diligence statements that companies need to file.
The initiative follows a period of high uncertainty in the end of 2024, during which discussions on the postponement of the EUDR’s application by one year were associated with a strong push for a reopening of discussions on the substance of the EUDR obligations. To avoid lengthy discussions, the Council and the European Parliament had at the time decided to only amend EUDR provisions setting out delays.
The updated EUDR Guidance and FAQ seem to aim to remedy certain concerns raised since, notably by the conservative majority at the Parliament (EPP), by introducing the following simplification elements:
Companies can reuse existing due diligence statements when goods, that had been previously placed on the market are reimported;
An authorised representative can now submit a due diligence statement on behalf of members of company groups;
Companies may submit their due diligence statements annually instead of a batch-specific declaration;
Non-SME operators and traders can now fulfill their duty to ‘ascertain upstream due diligence’ by collecting and referencing their direct suppliers’ DDS numbers, without systematically checking every single statement or being required to collect information included under Article 9
They are accompanied by a Draft delegated Act submitted for consultation until 13 May 2025, providing further precisions to the list of products included under Annex I of the EUDR (e.g. that are subject to the due diligence requirements), notably considering the exemption of certain packaging elements from the EUDR requirements.
While the above simplifications appear to remedy certain concerns of the industry, the choice of non-binding guidance ensures an efficient decision-making process but leaves some uncertainties in the implementation of the EUDR requirements. Ultimately, clarification by way of an amendment to the text of the EUDR itself could be required to bring about further clarity.
Nayelly Landeros Rivera contributed to this article
EUON Publishes Nanopinion on Enhancing the Regulatory Application of NAMs to Assess Nanomaterial Risks in the Food and Feed Sector
On April 8, 2025, the European Union (EU) Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON) published a Nanopinion entitled “A Qualification System to Accelerate Development and Regulatory Implementation of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)” by Andrea Haase, Ph.D., German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Shirin M. Usmani, Ph.D., BfR, Irene Cattaneo, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Maria Chiara Astuto, EFSA, and Francesco Cubadda, Ph.D., National Institute of Health (ISS). The authors explain how the NAMs4NANO project, funded by EFSA, enhances the regulatory application of NAMs for assessing nanomaterial risks in the food and feed sector. The authors propose to establish three qualification programs, covering NAMs for nanomaterial physicochemical characterization; characterization of nanomaterials in relevant biological fluids; and toxicity screening. According to the authors, the proposed system has been tested initially for one selected model as an example that can be applied to investigate nanomaterial uptake and transport across intestinal barrier, and to evaluate the nanomaterial effects on barrier integrity. The authors note that more case studies are currently ongoing to qualify selected NAMs in the forthcoming implementation plan of the qualification system. The authors invite key stakeholders to collaborate on relevant case studies that can be used to test the qualification system.
Safety First: Legal Implications of Faulty Products and Product Liability Claims
No one expects to be injured by a product they thought was safe, but knowing your rights is key when it happens. Product liability laws exist to protect consumers and ensure that companies are held accountable when they cut corners or overlook safety standards.
In this post, we’ll break down what product liability means, how these claims work, and what steps to take if a defective product injures you or a loved one.
What Is Product Liability?
Product liability refers to a manufacturer or seller being held legally responsible for placing a defective product into the hands of a consumer. These claims typically fall into three main categories:
Design Defects: These are flaws in the product’s blueprint. Even if made perfectly, the product is dangerous by design.
Manufacturing Defects: These happen during the production process, where something went wrong when the product was being made or assembled.
Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn): If a product does not include adequate warnings or instructions and causes injury as a result, this is also grounds for a claim.
Common Examples
Product liability cases range from various industries. Some common examples include:
A car with faulty airbags.
A kitchen appliance that overheats and starts a fire.
Prescription drugs with harmful side effects that were not disclosed.
Children’s toys with choking hazards not labeled on the packaging.
In each case, the core issue is the same: a product that should have been safe caused harm.
Who is Held Liable?
Depending on the case, several parties could be responsible:
The product manufacturer
The parts manufacturer
The company that assembled or installed the product
The retailer that sold the product
Under the legal principle of strict liability, a consumer does not always need to prove negligence—just that the product was defective and caused injury.
What To Do If You Have Been Injured
If you or someone you love has been injured by a defective product, here are the steps to take:
Seek medical attention immediately.
Keep the product—do not throw it away, as it may be important evidence.
Document everything: injuries, medical treatment, product packaging, purchase receipts.
Speak with a product liability attorney. These cases can be complex, and having experienced legal guidance can make all the difference.
Conclusion
Product liability laws are there to protect consumers and to encourage companies to prioritize safety over shortcuts. If you’ve been harmed by a faulty product, you have rights.