MoCRA: Facility Registration and Product Listing – Where to Begin?
MoCRA: Is My Product a “Cosmetic” and Who Is My “Responsible Person”?
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article is one of a series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA as we await its full implementation. To begin, we will discuss whether MoCRA applies to your product and, if so, which entity should serve as the responsible person for ongoing compliance.
MoCRA: A New Era in the Regulation of Cosmetic Products
The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (“MoCRA”) was signed into law on December 29, 2022. MoCRA expands the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to regulate cosmetics and serves as the most significant change to the regulation of cosmetics since the passage of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act in 1938. MoCRA is a seismic shift in the world of cosmetic regulation, bringing new authorities to the FDA that are similar to those that currently exist for food, drugs and medical devices, among other regulated products. MoCRA has sweeping implications for domestic and international cosmetics manufacturers that market products in the U.S.
New Hampshire Supreme Court Rejects Medical Monitoring Claim in PFAS Case
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire declined to recognize medical monitoring as a remedy or cause of action for plaintiffs who claim exposure to toxic substances. The court based its reasoning on New Hampshire common law and public policy, explaining that an increased risk of injury is insufficient to state a claim for medical monitoring as a remedy or cause of action. See Brown v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 2022-0132, 2023 WL 2577257 (N.H. Mar. 21, 2023).
Husch Blackwell Publishes Its Inaugural Legal Insights for Manufacturing Report
We are pleased to announce that Husch Blackwell has published its inaugural “Legal Insights for Manufacturing” report, which provides a look ahead to 2023 and explores the key trends and issues that will shape the coming year for the manufacturing industry.
Washington Court of Appeals Applies Common Sense Limits on Consenting to Personal Jurisdiction
Where a case is filed can sometimes be as important as the facts of the case itself. The Washington Court of Appeals, recently revisited specific jurisdiction in the context of consent in Bradley v. Globus Medical, Inc.
In February 2021, Rachel Bradley filed suit in Spokane County Superior Court against Globus Medical, Inc. alleging
Federal Court Tosses Fifteen-Year-Old Lead Paint Personal Injury Lawsuit
On March 2, 2022, a Wisconsin federal judge dismissed Burton v. Am. Cyanamid Co., No. 07-C-0303, 2022 WL 623895 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 2, 2022), a lingering fifteen-year personal injury litigation against lead-based paint manufacturers The Sherwin-Williams Co., E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., and Armstrong Containers Inc. In granting the manufacturers’ summary judgment motions, District Judge Lynn Adelman relied upon the procedural issues that arose throughout the lawsuit and the 2021 reversal of a $6 million award in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The Impact of Droz on Evidentiary Standards in Delaware
On March 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Delaware settled a 15-year battle between asbestos plaintiffs and defendants by affirming the burden-shifting framework provided in a 2006 Superior Court decision. This decision affirms once and for all that where a company manufactured
Can You Waive Liability for Reckless Conduct? Iowa Supreme Court Finally Says No.
Litigants recently tested the limits of liability waivers under Iowa law. In a 6-1 decision, the Iowa Supreme Court joined the bulk of other jurisdictions and held a contractual liability waiver was not enforceable “to the extent it purports to eliminate liability for the willful, wanton, or reckless conduct” a plaintiff alleges. Lukken v. Fleischer, 962 N.W.2d 71, 82 (Iowa 2021).
OEHHA Proposes (Additional) Changes to Prop 65 Short Form Warnings
About a year ago, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed to amend the short form warning rules for Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires businesses to warn Californians about exposure to certain chemicals through “clear and reasonable” warnings. There are currently two forms of “safe harbor” warnings, one of which is the short form warning. The short form warning requires less detail, takes up less label space, and does not require the listing of any chemical names, which has made it a popular choice.