Blog
-
CBD: Confusing Regulations May Soon Find at Least Some Clarity — But Proceed With Caution
By Tom Hagy
July 16, 2018Proponents say the medical benefits are many and magnificent.
You can feel better without feeling stoned. While that will be disappointing to some, people enduring a variety of ailments may find relief, proponents and some studies say. From inflammation to pain to anxiety. From arthritis to alcoholism to diabetes. From psychoses to seizures. Cannabidiol may cure what ails you. And in many cases the science is there, even studies sponsored by the government, say the folks at Project CBD.
While the regulations vary from state to state, and the definitions can be confusing, clarity is coming for at least the hemp-derived variety of products – as opposed to its sister cannabis plant, marijuana – with the likely passage of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Hemp Farm Bill. The measure is also noteworthy because it has drawn rare bipartisan support.
CBD can be found in just about anything, from skin care products to pain medications to anti-seizure drugs—even beer. Companies, including large retailers, like Target, have tried to sell or are selling products containing CBD online or across state lines.
While small compared to the marijuana industry, CBD is on a serious growth trajectory.
“Spending on legal cannabis worldwide is expected to hit $57 billion by 2027,” according to an article at Forbes.com, written by Thomas Pellechia, citing the research of Arcview Market Research and BDS Analytics. “The largest group of cannabis buyers will be in North America, going from $9.2 billion in 2017 to $47.3 billion a decade later.”
In a release from MarketNewsUpdates.com, “A new report by cannabis/legal marijuana market analysts firm Hemp Business Journal projects that the U.S. CBD market will grow to $2.1 billion by 2020, an astronomical jump in value compared to last year’s CBD market of $202 million. As the market continues to swell, it is expected the space will reach the billion-dollar status as product diversification and global demand drive revenue levels. One of the major drivers for the CBD market is the growing list of health benefits of CBD oil.”
Proceed with Caution
In his post for the Canna Law Blog – a must-follow for any attorney or company interested in the legal aspects of cannabis – attorney Daniel Shortt of Harris Bricken tells businesses they must know the rules.
“It is no secret that CBD is having a moment right now. Unlike its cousin tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is another cannabinoid found in the cannabis plant, CBD is not psychoactive. It has been growing in popularity for years for medical and other applications, but has really taken off lately.”
Shortt offered five questions businesses must ask before diving in. Here is a truncated version of that list:
-
What is the source of the CBD? Is it coming from a licensed source? Is it derived from industrial hemp?
-
What do the lab tests say? You must be sure the products do not contain THC (or more than .3%).
-
Where is the CBD going to be sold? State laws vary and if you violate them you could face criminal sanctions. Read more here: https://www.cannalawblog.com/industrial-hemp-dont-forget-about-state-law/
-
What claims are you making about CBD? Are you claiming the product treats disease? You don’t want to make health claims or allow others to make them via testimonials on your website, for example.
-
Has the law changed? You must keep up with federal and state laws.
Read more.

Writing for the online news service CBD Origin, Aaron Cadena echoes Shortt’s first point, saying legality of CBD has to do with its origin. Does it come from hemp or does it come from marijuana? “[B]oth are members of the cannabis family,” Cadena writes, “so they do share a lot of characteristics. There is, however, a crucial difference between the two–the amount of psychoactive THC each plant produces …. In other words, marijuana can get you really high, while hemp has such a low amount of THC, that it would be impossible to get high off it.”
“Botanically speaking, there’s not a shred of difference between the two plants: Both are cannabis Sativa under the Linnean definition*,” writes Chris Roberts for Leafly.com. “Legally speaking, the two do indeed have a binary difference: One is federally legal, and the other is not.” (* Named for Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus or his modern system of botany and zoology. Who knew.)
It is because of these psychoactive differences that CBD taken from hemp – with no such effects – is legal almost everywhere in the U.S., while the legality of marijuana-derived products is a mixed bag.
Cadena’s article includes a survey of the various state laws regulating both forms of CBD. Read the full article to see which 46 states have legalized CBD with a prescription, the 17 that have specific legislation for THC levels and which conditions it’s to be used for, and the 29 states that have fully legalized medical use of both forms of CBD.
ProCon.org offered another survey, current as of May 8, 2018, providing summaries of the law in each state. The organization commented that “we do not consider passing a CBD-specific law to be the equivalent of making medical marijuana legal because these laws do not recognize the use of marijuana plant for medical purposes.” (For their survey of medical marijuana states, go here: https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881.)
The Hoosiers Take the Lead
Right now, Indiana has “the most robust regulations of hemp-derived CBD products.” In his post for the Canna Law Blog, Shortt wrote that, as of March 21, 2018, the state allows the distribution and retail sale of “low-THC hemp extract,” defined as a product “(1) derived from Cannabis sativa L. that meets the definition of industrial hemp; (2) that contains not more than 0.3% delta-9-THC (including precursors); and (3) that contains no other controlled substances.”
This is interesting, Shortt says, because it shows that Indiana is officially aware of CBD products and decided to allow their sale. “The catch is that those sales are restricted to a certain class of CBD products, and they are heavily regulated,” he says.
The list of labeling requirements will be a challenge for companies distributing across state lines. Some will not be selling in Indiana and others will comply, Shortt predicts.
“Indiana is unique in the sense that it allows CBD and also regulates its sale so robustly. Let’s hope for more positive cannabis developments in the Hoosier State,” Shortt writes.
Shortly after the Ninth Circuit’s CBD ruling, on May 22, 2018, the DEA issued an internal directive regarding products derived from cannabis but are not marijuana. They referenced an earlier Ninth Circuit ruling from 2004 which enjoined the DEA from enforcing certain THC regulations (See Hemp Industries Ass’n v. DEA, 357 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2004)).”
Responding to various inquires, the DEA issued the following to agency personnel:
“Products and materials that are made from the cannabis plant and which fall outside the CSA definition of marijuana (such as sterilized seeds, oil or cake made from the seeds, and mature stalks) are not controlled under the CSA. Such products may accordingly be sold and otherwise distributed throughout the United States without restriction under the CSA or its implementing regulations. The mere presence of cannabinoids is not itself dispositive as to whether a substance is within the scope of the CSA; the dispositive question is whether the substance falls within the CSA definition of marijuana.”
“[A]ny product that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection determines to be made from the cannabis plant but which falls outside the CSA definition of marijuana may be imported into the United States without restriction under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. The same considerations apply to exports of such products from the United States, provided further that it is lawful to import such products under the laws of the country of destination.”
The DEA explained, though, that its statements regarding the drug code for marijuana extract and regarding resin remain the same. “[T]he drug code for marijuana extract extends no further than the CSA does, and it thus does not apply to materials outside the CSA definition of marijuana.”
Mona Zhang, writing for Forbes.com, said there are CBD producers who source their hemp from cultivators that operate under the Farm Bill. “But given how widespread these products are, it’s unlikely that all of them were sourced from research hemp. And state laws on CBD and hemp vary widely. Colorado, which legalized adult-use marijuana in 2012, has a robust industrial hemp program and is home to the first U.S.-bred certified hemp seed. But in Massachusetts, where you can now grow marijuana at home, it’s still a crime to grow hemp without a state license …”
If only someone would do something at the federal level.
Clarity on the Horizon?

Harris Bricken attorney Shortt notes that U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell – in an attempt to settle the CBD matter – introduced a bill to legalize hemp on the federal level, an initiative that is getting rare bipartisan support: the Hemp Farming Act of 2018 or S.2667.
Shortt said that, while subject to change, hemp would be defined as: “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-0 [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”
“This proposed definition is significant,” Shortt writes, “because it specifically includes the term ‘extracts,’ thereby undermining the DEA’s much-maligned ‘marihuana extract’ rule, which broadly defines any extract from the cannabis plant as ‘marijuana’ and not hemp. The proposed ‘hemp’ definition also includes ‘cannabinoids’ contained in hemp which could add much needed legal certainty to the already booming CBD market. The Act would also explicitly remove hemp from the Controlled Substances Act’s definition of marijuana.”
Jason Amatucci, co-founder of CBD producer Anavii Market, said the Hemp Farming Act has bi-partisan support and has a “decent chance of actually getting signed into law this year.”
“It’s time the federal government changes the way it looks at hemp,” Sen. McConnell said when he announced the measure, adding, it will “modernize federal law in this area and empower American farmers to explore this promising new market.”
“The future of the legal American hemp derived CBD oil industry looks very bright even though some folks are still confused about the legality nuances. This new law will even further solidify the legality and legitimacy of the hemp derived CBD industry,” Amatucci says.
Sidebar: Marihuana?
For the etymology nerds out there, like me, Washington Post writer Christopher Ingraham wrote a piece on the DEA’s insistence on spelling marijuana with an “h” instead of a “j” – something this one-time Spanish student found jarring. I imagine actual Spanish-speaking people would say something like, “Yeah, we have bigger things to worry about,” except in Spanish. Ingraham uncovers some surprising theories but little hope for change. Read it now.
It’s ironic, I suppose, that the only letter the government is avoiding is the letter “j,” as in “jay” for joint. Maybe that’s the real reason for their spelling.
-
-
CBD: Legal or Not? | Webinar | Aug. 16, 2018 | 2pm

[two-fifths-first]
DATE: Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018
TIME: 2 p.m. EDT; 1 p.m. CDT; 12 p.m. MDT; 11 a.m. PDT
PLACE: Your computer
PRICE: $197 per dial-in site (unlimited attendance at one location) through Aug. 3, $247 thereafter
Register by Aug. 3 and save!
For more information, email leslie.davidson@litigationconferences.com.
Your webinar registration includes:
• A site license to attend this webinar (invite as many people in one location as you can fit around your computer at no extra charge).
• Downloadable PowerPoint presentations from our speakers.
• The opportunity to connect directly with speakers during the audience Q&A session.
• At least one-hour of CLE credit.
Speakers
Daniel Shortt
Harris Bricken
Seattle
Alison Malsbury
Harris Bricken
San Francisco[/two-fifths-first][three-fifths]
With so many studies coming out on the benefits of CBD, a lot of people and companies see tremendous market opportunities and are diving in.
Whether derived from industrial hemp or marijuana, these days CBD can be found in just about anything, from skin care products to pain medications to anti-seizure drugs—even beer. Companies, including large retailers like Target, have tried to sell or are selling products containing CBD online or across state lines.
But determining the legal status of CBD isn’t easy. Because CBD is a cannabis derivative, the biggest question, of course, is whether or not it’s even legal under state and federal law. How you answer that could mean the difference between significant revenue gains and significant losses—even the possibility of criminal prosecution—for your clients.
So, what do current federal laws say about the use of CBD? How do individual state regulations affect the legal status of CBD? What do the 2014 Federal Farm Bill and the Controlled Substances Act say about growing hemp? And what are the legal and business implications for companies operating in this space?
Get answers to these questions and more when you register to attend “CBD: Legal or Not? How State and Federal Laws Govern the Manufacture, Marketing, and Distribution of CBD Products” on Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018. Listen as experts Daniel Shortt and Alison Malsbury, both attorneys with Harris Bricken, provide information that can help your clients determine whether or not what they’re doing with CBD is legal.
You’ll learn about the two primary sources of legal CBD—industrial hemp cultivated in the U.S and hemp from abroad—and how the two distinct pathways differ. You’ll get practical do’s and don’ts for working lawfully in the hemp-CBD world despite its precarious legal status. You’ll come away with the most current data on the legalities of using CBD that could change the advice you give your clients about working within the law and avoiding possible criminal prosecution.
Who Should Attend
Whether you’re a local government official, state regulator, or an attorney with clients in the state-legal cannabis industry—anyone who needs to make sense of the current laws that govern the manufacture, marketing, sales, and distribution of products containing CBD—this is one webinar you can’t afford to miss.
For one low price—just $197 (through Aug. 3, $247 thereafter)—you and your entire team at one location can take part in this fast-paced, insightful webinar. Best of all, you’ll be able to connect personally with our speakers when we open things up for questions from the audience.
Here is just some of what you’ll learn during this in-depth 90-minute session:
• How to interpret current state and federal laws governing the use and sale of products containing CBD.
• The key questions to ask that will help determine if your CBD comes from a legal source—and what to do if it doesn’t.
• How to find out which part of the plant your CBD is created from—and how what you learn could affect the legal status of your product.
• What FDA approval of the first CBD drug, Epidiolex, means for the industry.
• Marketing: The claims you can (and shouldn’t) make about your CBD products.
• What the FDA has to say about marketing CBD as a supplement.
• Is trademark protection possible under current law for CBD products—and if it is, how do you get it?
• The prerequisites for legally selling CBD products across state lines or in stores that aren’t licensed to sell marijuana.And more!
Speaker Bios
Daniel Shortt is an attorney with Harris Bricken and works extensively with entrepreneurs in the cannabis industry. He is an authority on legal issues relating to CBD and hemp laws and has spoken on these topics at events across the country and overseas.
Mr. Shortt helps clients with corporate formation, transactional, licensing, regulatory, and litigation needs. He writes for the award-winning Canna Law Blog and speaks to media outlets about his perspective on legal issues in marijuana and hemp.
Mr. Shortt graduated from the University of Washington School of Law where he worked extensively with the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board to fund and establish the Cannabis Law and Policy Project (CLPP). He then served as the editor of the CLPP blog and as a Hazelton Fellow researching cannabis law.
Alison Malsbury is an attorney with Harris Bricken. She focuses her practice on corporate and intellectual property transactions, working primarily with cannabis, tech, and entertainment clients. Ms. Malsbury has assisted clients with contracts, company formation, intellectual property protection, and regulatory compliance, and has worked with creative entrepreneurs at all stages of business development. She has a growing practice representing celebrities on cannabis endorsement deals and helping cosmetic and skin care companies navigate the complex CBD laws.
Before joining Harris Bricken, Ms. Malsbury worked with the in-house legal team of one of the largest software companies in the world on its trademark and technology licensing issues.
Ms. Malsbury graduated cum laude from Santa Clara University School of Law where she was the technical editor for the Santa Clara Journal of International Law.
REGISTER NOW
[/three-fifths]
-
California Enacts the ‘First Truly Sweeping Privacy Regime’ in Record Time
The California legislature — apparently not wanting to be pegged as just another slow-moving governing body — took the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 from proposal to passage to signing in one week.Critics weren’t sitting on their hands either.
“Businesses Blast California’s New Data-Privacy Law,” read one headline in the Wall Street Journal. For consumers, Californians anyway, the good news is that they can refuse to allow companies to sell their personal data. But, the WSJ reported, business across the country say the law will cause “far-reaching damage to everything from retailers’ customer-loyalty programs to data gathering by Silicon Valley tech giants.”
Law firms are cranking out their advisories and analyses.
Sullivan & Cromwell says the CCPA establishes a new privacy framework for covered businesses by:
“Creating an expanded definition of personal information for purposes of the Act;
“Creating new data privacy rights for California consumers, including rights to know, access, have deleted and opt out of the sale of their personal information;
“Imposing special rules for the collection of consumer data from minors; and
“Creating a new and potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the Act and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches.”
The firm also offered a quick comparison between the CCPA and the GDPR. “At a high level, the CCPA bears certain similarities to GDPR, the comprehensive regulation governing the “processing of personal data” of EU residents. But the CCPA and GDPR provide for differing rights, obligations, and exceptions, and compliance with one will not necessarily ensure compliance with the other. For example, unlike GDPR, the CCPA does not generally (other than with respect to minors) require businesses to implement an “opt-in” system to obtain consumers’ consent prior to processing their information. Instead, the CCPA requires businesses to allow consumers to “opt-out” of having their information sold. Thus, businesses will need to develop a CCPA compliance strategy in light of these and other differences with GDPR. Businesses may choose to adopt differentiated policies for consumers in different jurisdictions, or may seek to create a unified global policy that adopts the most consumer favorable protections from the CCPA and GDPR (and, of course, other applicable regulations).”
A Ropes & Gray team wrote that now is the time for companies to evaluate the impact of the law on their options, even though it does not go into effect until 2020. “Perhaps reflecting the rushed manner in which the legislation was adopted, there remains considerable ambiguity about some key provisions within the Act. For example … companies are not permitted to discriminate against consumers who exercise their rights under the Act through differentiated pricing or lower service levels. However, the Act provides that companies may offer a different price if the consumer allows the company to sell their data, provided the price difference is “directly related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data.” Presumably, this is intended to mean the value provided to the consumer in exchange for their data, but on its face, it would appear that companies are required to calculate the intrinsic value to the consumer of their personal information.
Covington & Burling attorneys said “the California legislature is expected to further revise the CCPA before it takes effect in 2020,” but businesses should start to prepare. “Covered businesses should assess whether existing practices involving the collection, use, or sharing of data implicates the personal information identifiers defined in the act. If so, it might be prudent to consider changes, such as minimizing the collection of certain personal identifiers where practicable, modifying third party contracts involving the sale or sharing of personal Data Privacy and Cybersecurity information, and adjusting data privacy policies and procedures to comply with the CCPA. Companies in highly regulated industries that already are subject to sector-specific federal privacy laws will want to consider the potential availability of exemptions under the CCPA. For example, the CCPA does not apply to personal information that is collected, processed, sold, or disclosed by a financial institution pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) if the CCPA is in conflict with the GLBA. Additionally, with personal information increasingly employed to optimize products and services, covered businesses across industries, particularly those utilizing data monitoring and analytic tools, should anticipate the need to allocate resources and prepare for increased operating costs associated with, among other things, optimizing data retention policies, training personnel, enabling consumers to submit requests to access, delete, or opt out of the sale of their personal information, updating consumer notice practices, and other organizational and infrastructure changes.”
Morrison & Foerster attorneys commented that with the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (AB 375), “the United States now has its first truly sweeping privacy regime.”
The Act is a first, the firm writes, “not only because of its expansive scope, but also because of the process by which it was enacted. Never before has such sweeping privacy legislation been enacted in the span of a single week, with limited input from key stakeholders. While this fast track averted the ballot initiative and the challenges presented by the initiative, it also left a complex—and messy—privacy regime whose exact scope is not clear.”
“In the short term,” the MoFo analysis continues, “businesses undoubtedly will continue their efforts to identify and advocate for amendments to clarify key ambiguities, including the scope of consumers’ private right of action and civil enforcement actions. Businesses may also seek to amend onerous provisions, such as the requirement that businesses disclose to consumers both categories of PI and “specific pieces” of PI collected about them. Separately, businesses should also monitor for any regulatory proposals by the California AG to implement the Act and be prepared to advocate accordingly.”
Read the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 for yourself.
-
Complex Post-Settlement Liens | Webinar | July 26, 2018 | 2pm

[two-fifths-first]
Date: July 26, 2018
Time: 2pm-3:30pm
Fee: $125
Register and pay online or contact
Kathleen.McFadden@LitigationConferences.com
(484) 324-2755 x2000
Speakers
Franklin Solomon
Solomon Law FirmBrett Newman
Lien Resolution Group[/two-fifths-first] [three-fifths]
Complex Post-Settlement Liens
Join us for a highly practical session with two deeply experienced practitioners who will share their insights and answer your questions on issues that impact the cases on your desk today.
Learn about the newest case law, agency positions and litigation tactics affecting health and disability plan reimbursement claims, including how to protect your clients and your practice in this rapidly developing area.
Our speakers will discuss:
Medicare Advantage Plans
Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA) Plans
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Claims
Medicare set-asides
TRICARE
Veterans Administration Claims
Speaker Bios
Franklin P. Solomon | Solomon Law Firm
Franklin Solomon has a nationwide practice focused on evaluation, litigation and resolution of healthcare lien/reimbursement claims. He represents personal injury victims and their attorneys in defending against claims by health plans and government benefits programs seeking payment out of tort recoveries. Most recently, he was plaintiffs’ counsel in two federal appellate court cases decided last summer: Wurtz v. The Rawlings Company, ___ F.3d ___, (2d Cir. 2014), a class action challenging New York insurers’ reimbursement claims against their insureds, and Taransky v. Sec. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Svcs., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2014), a class action challenging Medicare’s claims for reimbursement out of New Jersey tort recoveries.
Brett Newman | The Lien Resolution Group
Brett Newman is known nationally by plaintiff attorneys for his expertise on claims avoidance and reduction. Recognizing the ever-growing nature of lien resolution and the ever-increasing associated liability, Brett established The Lien Resolution Group and The Newman Structured Settlement Group to assist both individual claimants of personal injury lawsuits and mass tort claimants in the protection of their proceeds and government benefits.
[/three-fifths]
-
Congressional Cannabis Proposal Would Can Criminalization
Could this be the thing that brings the parties together?
Here is a quote from an article written for Forbes.com by freelance writer Janet Burns.

[Jolene Forman, staff attorney at the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance] called the bill a “first step,” and noted, “This bipartisan proposal clears the way for states to develop their own marijuana policies without fear of federal intervention. This will give states more opportunity to restore communities that have borne the brunt of the drug war and mass criminalization.”
So far, 30 states, Washington, DC and the U.S. territories of Guam and Puerto Rico have enacted medical marijuana legislation, while estimates suggest that 63 million Americans reside in areas where anyone over 21 may now legally possess the plant.
-
Miller Friel: Opioid Suppliers Are Right to Expect Insurance Coverage
An excerpt from a post by Bernard Bell of Miller Friel PLLC

“Because insurers are facing a difficult time evading coverage for opioid claims, they are raising all sorts of non-contractual defenses to avoid coverage, including a ‘social insurance’ argument they have raised in the past.
“If past public health crises are prologue, these arguments will run something like this: Holding insurers responsible to pay for the costs of public services, including health care, will transform private party liability insurance into social insurance to underwrite public health epidemics caused by all manner of ills. According to insurers, this will, at a minimum, increase the cost of liability insurance, and financially harm liability insurers, who have not priced this risk into their premiums. Moreover, holding insurers liable to pay will shift costs away from those best equipped to address the social problem; the companies that supply the opioid products.
“These arguments are inconsistent with insurance law, which permits parties to freely contract to cover risks, and which place the burden on insurers to pay for insured risk, even if they made an error in underwriting. Courts interpret insurance contracts according to their language and construe them against insurers if they are ambiguous, and in favor of an insureds’ reasonable expectations of coverage.
“Moreover, to the extent courts are inclined to look past contract language when construing insurance policies, the social arguments cut in favor of coverage, not against it, because liability insurance is designed to perform risk management, and deterrence and compensation functions of insurance are important to the social functioning and ordering of society. … These social purposes are especially easy to grasp in the context of pharmaceutical companies that develop and bring to market countless products, including opioid pain medicine, that can relieve human pain and suffering. These companies bought and paid for liability insurance to manage the risks inherent in their business. They are entitled to enforce the promises made to them by those insurance companies that accepted their risks and their premiums.” -
Insurance Coverage and GDPR: What’s Your Financial Exposure? –Linda Kornfeld, Blank Rome
In her recent article — GDPR Is Finally Here: It’s Time to Make Sure Your Current Cyber Policy Will Protect against New Financial Exposures — Blank Rome insurance coverage partner Linda Kornfeld wrote:
Companies can face large financial exposure for GDPR “fines or penalties.” Are they covered under currently worded cyber policies? The answer is, maybe not if your policy, e.g., covers regulatory proceedings addressing only failures to protect private information, as opposed to GDPR proceedings that may address broader noncompliant data collection and use practices. Additionally, coverage for GDPR fines or penalties may be more restricted under the laws of many European countries than the laws of certain states in the United States. Your insurer may agree to choice of law language in your policy that will increase the chances of coverage.

On behalf of all of us at HB — Congratulations to Linda on her move to Blank Rome!
Now Vice Chair of the firm’s Insurance Recovery Practice Group, Linda is one of the nation’s most prominent insurance recovery attorneys, representing corporate policyholders in high-stakes litigation for more than 25 years. Using strategic, creative approaches in her trial and appellate practice, Linda assists her clients in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance assets. She is a strategic adviser to senior executives and in-house counsel on mitigating risk and maximizing insurance recoveries.Linda has been a valued contributor to HB programs and, before that, to Mealey’s Conferences and Mealey’s Litigation Reports.
-
Class Actions Weekly Roundup from Top Class Actions
This roundup is prepared exclusively for HB Litigation Conferences by:

Walmart Class Action Claims Glucosamine Tablets are Mislabeled
Walmart has been hit with a class action lawsuit claiming that their store brand glucosamine tablets are mislabeled. Plaintiffs Cynthia Parker, Reba Garth, Margaret Herrin, and Shirley Reinhard allege that Walmart misrepresents its store-brand glucosamine sulfate dietary… Read More
Sorin 3T Heater Cooler Lawsuit Alleges Serious M. Chimaera Bacterial Infection
An Indiana man has filed a Sorin 3T heater cooler lawsuit against LivaNova PLC, alleging their cardiac heater cooler device had caused him to develop a potentially fatal infection. The claimant filed the Sorin 3T heater cooler… Read More
Coca-Cola Seeks Dismissal of Diet Coke Class Action Lawsuit
Coca-Cola asked a New York federal court to toss a class action lawsuit alleging the company’s use of the name “Diet Coke” is misleading. The company argues that claims against its use of the word “diet” in… Read More
Couple Files Stryker Hip Recall Lawsuit Over Metallosis Complications
Thousands of hip implants were affected by a Stryker hip recall after they were linked with serious complications, including metallosis. Some patients affected by these major side effects have turned to litigation, hoping to regain some… Read More
Facebook Class Action Challenges Facial Recognition Technology
Facebook faces a new class action lawsuit alleging that the social media site captured and stored biometric information of non-users in violation of Illinois state law. Plaintiff Clayton Zellmer argues that Facebook broke state law by… Read More
Woman Alleges Bleeding While Taking Xarelto in Lawsuit Against Drug Makers
A woman who allegedly suffered bleeding while taking Xarelto has filed a lawsuit against the makers of the anticoagulant drug. Plaintiff Emmy L. filed the Xarelto lawsuit in Louisiana federal court, joining a growing multidistrict litigation (MDL) against… Read More
Arthrex Knee Replacement Causes Injuries, Patients Claim
Knee replacement surgery is one of the most common surgical procedures in the U.S., but some patients who have received a knee device like the Arthrex knee replacement alleged that they suffered serious complications. In some cases, Arthrex… Read More
United Industries Can’t Escape Spectracide False Ad Class Action Lawsuit
Last week, a California federal judge denied a bid by herbicide maker United Industries Corp. to dismiss a false advertising class action lawsuit after finding it possible that reasonable consumers would be misled by the labeling… Read More
-
Top Class Actions’ Top Trends Affecting Class Actions in 2018
Editor’s Note: This article was written by Kim Gale at Top Class Actions and is reprinted here with the permission of the publisher. Scott Hardy, the company’s President & CEO, is one of the speakers featured at HB’s Class Action Mastery conference May 9-11, 2018 in New York. Top Class Actions is sponsoring that event and its companion program, Mass Tort Med School, the same week.
As we come close to rounding out the first quarter of 2018, it is clear that several class action lawsuit trends from 2017 will continue to ripple through the court system this year.
Class Action Lawsuit Stats
Did you know three areas are responsible for a third of all class action lawsuits filed in the U.S.? The federal courts in California, Southern District (Miami) of Florida, and the Eastern District (Brooklyn) of New York keep lawyers and judges the busiest.
In the initial nine months of 2017, a total 3,136 federal class action lawsuits were filed in those areas alone, according to an article published Dec. 9, 2017 by PorterWright.com.These statistics are apt to change because new Supreme Court decisions (Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell) rein in a court’s jurisdiction and ability to litigate matters when residents from outside the court’s state make claims.
These new decisions mean a defendant will need to be sued in the state where the business is incorporated. Another option could be for individual states to file class action lawsuits and then seek to have them consolidated through multidistrict litigation (MDL).
Marketing Tactics Under Fire
Makers of everything from washing machines to mascara faced allegations of product misrepresentation. Advertising claims such as “organic,” “preservative free” and “virgin” can land a company in hot water with multiple class action lawsuits if these claims can be proven false.In 2017, class action lawsuits started challenging the way some products are made because consumers possibly paid more for such proclamations.
For example, extra virgin olive oil is the highest quality available, which consumers often pay a premium to receive.
To earn the title extra virgin, the oil must be free of defects, taste like fresh olives, and be produced using no solvents. Extra virgin olive oil has to be manufactured by a mechanical process and in temperatures that will not allow the oil to degrade. Finally, the oil must be sold in darkly tinted bottles to keep the product from degrading on the shelf.
In one olive oil case that led to a class action settlement (Kumar v. Safeway Inc.), olive oil labeled extra virgin was allegedly mixed with refined oil and packaged in clear bottles, ruining any chance at truly being “extra virgin.” To add further insult, the olive oil was labeled as imported from Italy, but contained olive oil from a variety of other countries not particularly known for their brilliantly tasty olives.
Consumers do not take kindly to paying a premium for false enhancements, which has led to multiple class action lawsuits against companies that tout their product as better than the rest due to refinements that don’t exist.
Class Action Settlements Under Scrutiny
In 2013, Subway was hit with a class action lawsuit after a foot-long sandwich that fell short at 11 inches was posted on social media. Subway explained away the one-inch discrepancy by saying the dough is a foot long, but after the bread is baked, the natural action of the dough rising can cause impact on the length.A class action settlement was reached in 2015 in which Subway agreed to make sure all locations adopted a uniform practice to guarantee each unbaked loaf measured 12 inches.
In the settlement, Subway also agreed to pay the class counsel’s $520,000 fees but offered no monetary compensation to consumers.
In September 2017, the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago reversed the Subway settlement on appeal because consumers would see the settlement as “utterly worthless.” The court expressed disgust over the settlement terms, indicating that any settlement that pays the class counsel, but provides no relief to the Class Members, “is no better than a racket.”
The court’s reversal of the settlement will force future defendants to make sure any settlement offer they consider includes a true benefit to Class Members and not just to their counsel.
Opioid Manufacturer Litigation
In 2017, more than 100 cases were filed against opioid manufacturers by individuals, health insurance companies, state governments, county governments and city governments. These opioid lawsuits seek to hold manufacturers accountable for the epidemic of opioids in the country that have led to overworked and under-financed ambulance services, hospital services, EMTs, police officers, rehabilitation facilities and other providers of care to people who overdose on opioids and need life-saving intervention.The judicial panel on multidistrict legislation is considering motions to centralize these pending lawsuits. Whether or not the cases are processed separately or as an MDL, outcomes from these opioid epidemic cases will set new precedents, affecting the medical community and the law.
“Small” Data Breach Litigation
Even though high-profile data breach cases make the news, many smaller data breach class action lawsuits are filed every day. Large and small businesses collect data on customers and employees. Disgruntled current or former employees can cause big headaches by allowing a small data breach.Employees who aren’t particularly computer savvy can accidentally save sensitive information where hackers could access it. As technology to enhance computer security has advanced, so have the skills of potential hackers who constantly look for weaknesses in firewalls.
A Look Forward
In 2018, class action lawsuits will continue to address claims regarding baby powder cancer, Roundup cancer, medication dangers, airbag recalls, whistleblower cases and other consumer-related issues.© Copyright 2018 Top Class Actions






