Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lessons from Food Litigation: Managing the Interaction of Litigation, Legislation, and Regulation
Food-borne illnesses and tainted food products have been a staple of product liability litigation for many decades and continue to be so now. In the last five years, however, food litigation has also turned to broader policy questions: Does tuna contain too much mercury and, if so, should someone have told us? Are fast-food restaurants to blame when someone gains too much weight or develops diabetes? Does the fact that certain foods contain partially hydrogenated oil (or trans fat, salt, sugar, or caffeine) create a cause of action on anyone's part? A new generation of food-related litigation, and class action litigation in particular, has been launched.
By and large, these policy-oriented food lawsuits have failed to survive early dispositive motions, regardless of the legal theory under which they are brought. See Mills v. Giant of Maryland, 441 F. Supp.2d 104 (D.D.C. 2006) (dismissing, as pre-empted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, plaintiffs' strict product liability claim against milk producers for failing to warn of potential lactose intolerance). Partly in response, a trend has emerged in the last 12 to 24 months. Local legislatures and public health departments are enacting ordinances and regulations concerning food, which purport to address pressing public health problems such as obesity. Some enactments ban the sale or use of certain food ingredients, while others seek to compel new or additional labeling of food products. These laws and regulations are themselves being challenged in court, sometimes successfully. This dance of litigation, legislation and regulation, and responsive litigation creates particular challenges for manufacturers and sellers and calls for a particular set of strategic responses.
Policy-Oriented Food Litigation
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.