California's Retroactive Phthalates Ban Now Effective
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.06.09
On January 1, 2009, California's ban on certain phthalates in certain children's products went into effect. The statute, Assembly Bill 1108 ("A.B. 1108") was signed into law in October 2007. A.B. 1108 prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of any toy or child care article containing DEHP, DBP, or BBP in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent. A.B. 1108 further prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of any "toy or child care article intended for use by a child under three years of age if that product can be placed in the child's mouth" containing DINP, DIDP, or DnOP in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent.
California's A.B. 1108 is similar in many respects to the federal provision banning specified phthalates, Section 108 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act ("CPSIA"). On November 17, 2008, Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") General Counsel Cheryl Falvey issued an advisory opinion letter stating that the CPSC will not apply the federal phthalate ban retroactively. Following publication of this advisory opinion, the California Attorney General submitted a letter to the CPSC on December 3, 2008, stating that California will apply its phthalates ban retroactively. In this letter, the California Attorney General also argued that the California phthalate ban is not preempted by the federal phthalate provision. The CPSC has subsequently indicated that it "respects the law as passed in California and its implementation," but has not issued an official written response addressing California's preemption analysis. Whether courts will conclude that the California statute is preempted by federal law remains to be seen.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 12.13.24
New FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule Amendments
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently announced that it approved final amendments to its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), broadening the rule’s coverage to inbound calls for technical support (“Tech Support”) services. For example, if a Tech Support company presents a pop-up alert (such as one that claims consumers’ computers or other devices are infected with malware or other problems) or uses a direct mail solicitation to induce consumers to call about Tech Support services, that conduct would violate the amended TSR.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 12.10.24
Fast Lane to the Future: FCC Greenlights Smarter, Safer Cars
Client Alert | 6 min read | 12.09.24
Eleven States Sue Asset Managers Alleging ESG Conspiracy to Restrict Coal Production
Client Alert | 3 min read | 12.09.24
New York Department of Labor Issues Guidance Regarding Paid Prenatal Leave, Taking Effect January 1