PA Supreme Court Rules Consumers Do Not Need to Prove Intent Under ‘Deceptive Acts’ Provision of the UTPCPL February 19, 2021 In a recent decision in Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the unlawful deceptive conduct provision in the “catch-all” section of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) imposes liability on commercial vendors who engage in conduct that has the potential to deceive and which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding without having to prove the vendor intended to deceive the consumer. The is a favorable decision for consumers across the Commonwealth. The Gregg case concerned a married couple who entrusted a financial advisor to invest their money in a life insurance policy and retirement accounts, only to find out that the funds were diverted to an investment which increased the financial advisor’s commission with little benefit to the Greggs. The PA Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs could bring an action for deceptive conduct under the UTPCPL without proving that the advisor intended to deceive the couple. Section 201-2(4) of the UTPCPL outlines 20 distinct unlawful methods of unfair competition, deceptive acts and practices. In 1996, the PA General Assembly modified the “catch-all” provision to bar not only fraudulent acts, but also deceptive conduct. ”Deceptive conduct,” the Court ruled, imposes a strict-liability standard for consumers to bring an action against companies engaging in deceptive conduct, similar to the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) and other similar state laws which also carry no state-of-mind requirement for deception. “The plain language of the current statute imposes liability on commercial vendors who engage in conduct that has the potential to deceive and which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. That is all that is required. The legislature required neither carelessness nor intent when a cause of action is premised upon deceptive conduct,” Justice Wecht wrote for the 4-3 majority. The Pennsylvania Association of Justice, The National Consumer Law Center, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Community Legal Services, and others filed briefs in support of the married couple and this interpretation of Pennsylvania law. Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec has decades of experience representing consumers in Pennsylvania and elsewhere against large companies for deceptive conduct and unfair trade practices in life insurance matters and others. Contact us at [email protected] if you have concerns regarding deceptive practices in the sale of your life insurance policies.
Minding your Peas and … Arsenic? Recent House Report Exposes Toxic Metals in Baby Foods February 8, 2021 On February 4, the US House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy under the Committee on Oversight and Reform published an alarming report that some of the nation’s most popular baby food brands contain unusually high amounts of toxic metals –arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury – which exceed even the companies’ own internal standards. These metals are found naturally in the soil, and as a result, end up in our produce because they absorb them in the soil as they grow. According to the report, even low levels of metal exposure can cause serious and often irreversible damage to infants, such as stunts to brain development and elevated risks of cancer. Despite the harm that could be caused by toxic metals, they are virtually unregulated in baby foods. In fact, the only regulation setting a standard is for infant rice cereal – setting a maximum of 100-ppb (parts per billion) of inorganic arsenic. For comparison, the FDA standard for lead in bottled water is 5-ppb. The non-profit Healthy Babies Bright Futures, which issued a report in 2019 finding 95 percent of baby foods tested contained these toxic chemicals, supports regulations establishing limits closer to 3-ppb inorganic arsenic and 1-ppb lead. Without regulations establishing the limits of toxic metals in baby food, manufacturers have been left to self-regulation. Unfortunately, according to the report, many aren’t testing for toxic metals, and those that do are selling products that exceed their own internal standards. Indeed, the test results of baby foods and their ingredients eclipse their company’s standards for many products sold to unsuspecting parents: including results up to 91 times the arsenic level, up to 177 times the lead level, up to 69 times the cadmium level, and up to 5 times the mercury level of those companies’ internal “limits.” Some of the recommendations the House report has sent to the FDA include: Mandatory testing on finished baby food products Required disclosure of metal contents on baby food labels Maximum levels set for toxic heavy metals permitted in baby foods Recommendations so that parents and manufacturers receive information needed to make this safer. The report also calls on manufacturers to voluntarily find substitutes for ingredients that are high in toxic heavy metals or phase out products that do. “Baby food manufacturers hold a special position of public trust. Consumers believe that they would not sell products that are unsafe. Consumers also believe that the federal government would not knowingly permit the sale of unsafe baby food,” the report states. The presence of lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium in the food we feed our children can be scary and shocking. FDPK’s consumer protection lawyers have experience in making sure manufacturers making untruthful or misleading claims are held accountable. Let us know at [email protected] if you want to find out if any of the products you use that claim to be “non-toxic” really are. It could be a food, household cleaner or any other product you use. Posted by Erin Holliday.
