ThePopTort

Unsafe Formula, Dangerous Bottles and Other Real Baby Problems

I have an idea for the next E Trade baby commercial.  How about, instead of the little tot checking his investment portfolios and researching stocks, he does something his fellow babies might actually benefit from - like calling on infant formula manufacturers and sellers to care more about safety? 

Wal-Mart has just agreed to pay the state of New Jersey “$775,000 in fines and revise its business practices following a ruling that the company sold expired infant formula and over-the-counter drugs to customers."

The lawsuit was brought in 2008 by New Jerseys’ Attorney General for "unconscionable business practices." Attorney General Paula Dow said, "This settlement puts the onus on Wal-Mart to check expiration dates when stocking its shelves, to periodically recheck stocked items, and then remove from sale any infant formula or non-prescription drugs that are past expiration."  But given that Wal-Mart still admits no liability, I guess we’ll see.

By the way, the state had also sued Target and Drug Fair.  Target settled in 2009; Drug Fair went out of business.

Meanwhile, “An Illinois mother says she is seeking class action status for a lawsuit over the recall of millions of containers of Similac powdered infant formula.”  The suit, filed against Abbott Laboratories Inc., comes after a September 22, 2010 recall “following two reports from consumers of beetle larvae in the formula. …The lawsuit claims Abbot knew about the insects on Sept. 16 but did not issue a recall of the products, including Isomil and Go & Grow, for a week.” 

More about the recall here.

And if that’s not enough, Maine is considering stepping in where the feds have refused, that is, banning bisphenol-A, a dangerous chemical “used to harden plastic in a variety of products, including food storage containers, baby bottles and toddlers' sippy cups.” 

In other words, babies have real issues.  So E Trade baby, how about something a little more age appropriate next time?

High Court’s Altria Decision = More Tobacco Industry Accountability

Here at ThePopTort, we are all about holding irresponsible industries accountable—so we were certainly glad that the U.S. Supreme Court recently allowed a deceptive advertising case against tobacco behemoth Altria Group to go forward.  Now, we are also very happy to report that the effects of the Court’s decision are beginning to be felt across the nation. 

Attorneys in one well-known Southern Illinois case, Price v. Philip Morris, are trying again, for example.  In that case, a $10.1 billion judgment against Philip Morris was thrown out by the Illinois Supreme Court, with the Court claiming that “the FTC authorized Philip Morris to use the words Lights and Lowered Tar and Nicotine on Marlboro Lights cigarettes and ordered the consumer fraud case dismissed.”  But now that the U.S. Supreme Court has held “that federal law does not prohibit state law consumer fraud claims based on fraudulent ‘light’ cigarette descriptors,” attorneys are seeking to reopen that case, and with good reason.

Meanwhile, 40 similar cases pending in 22 states have also been brought back from the “precipice,” according to Edward Sweda, an attorney with the Northeastern University’s Tobacco Products Liability Project.  “An entire class of litigation has been revived thanks to [the Supreme Court’s] ruling,” he said.

EPA Ruling Doesn’t Hold Water

Attorneys general from New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Washington, and the Canadian province of Manitoba filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently over what they say is an illegal “water transfer” ruling that could contaminate drinking water and harm fisheries.

The AGs argue that a June 9 administrative ruling by the agency could allow the transfer of polluted or contaminated water by ship from one body of water to another. For example, an oceangoing ship might dump salt water into the Great Lakes or a lake’s water could be dumped into a river.

Besides transferring polluted water, the lawsuit suggests the EPA’s rule could allow boats to “easily spread exotic species from one waterway to another,” in such places as the Great Lakes, where large ships routinely dump millions of gallons of “ballast water” into the lakes before taking on loads of raw materials.  (Ballast water is sea water that ships carry for stability and then discharge when their cargo is unloaded. It often contains organisms, larvae, and sometimes even whole fish.)

Isn’t it great to know to know that state AGs aren’t afraid to make waves when government agencies lead us into troubled waters?

Supreme Court Begins the New Term Wrestling With Preemption

Well civil justice fans, it’s opening day for the U.S. Supreme Court, and first up on the Court’s docket is the federal preemption case, Altria v. Good.

In a nutshell, the tobacco company Altria Group is trying to get the Supreme Court to scuttle a class action suit against it that was brought under Maine’s deceptive advertising laws, based on its suggesting that “low tar” and “light” cigarettes were a healthier alternative to regular cigarettes. They’re not. But the company is trying to argue that because there’s a 1965 federal law on the books that regulates this area, cigarette companies should be completely immune from liability – no matter how deceptive their advertising is.

Reports about today’s arguments suggest that the court seemed split, even though the Bush Administration was on the side of the smokers! One report said, “Justice Samuel Alito and other justices blasted the FTC for continuing to allow cigarette companies to make light cigarette claims. ‘You've created this whole problem,’ Alito said, lecturing Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General. ‘You have misled everyone who bought these cigarettes for a long time.’”