Tag: King

The Case That Makes You Go “Ewww”

A Washington Supreme Court decision, Bylsma v Burger King Corp., has decided that in Washington, under the Products Liability Act, an individual who claims damages for emotional distress in the absence of having actually consumed a product may bring a suit for damages. Other than proving "objective symptomology", the seller of that product will have no defense to the action.… Continue Reading

A Misleading Headline About Farmers Markets

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is just a website now, not an ink-and-paper newspaper, but I still read it for local news.  My interest in doing so, however, was diminished somewhat when I saw this breathless headline: Food hazards found at farmers markets, officials want fee hike Oh, no, I thought, I’d just come back from the Phinney … Continue Reading

Are FDA Reinspection Fees An Opportunity?

Fred Degnan, from King & Spalding, led a very insightful presentation on "Responding to Government Investigations and Warning Letters" at the recent ACI food regulatory summit. His presentation led to an interesting discussion about FDA’s close out of investigations. It was generally agreed that the FDA, in essence, is not notifying parties when it has decided to … Continue Reading

Delio v. McDonald’s Corp.: The Connecticut Grilled Chicken Case

It took our intrepid docket clerk a few weeks of digging, and finally contacting the plaintiffs’ counsel directly, to get a copy of the complaint in Delio v. McDonald’s Corp., a case filed in Superior Court in Hartford County, Connecticut on October 6.  Plaintiff’s counsel is Robert Solomon, a clinical professor at a small New … Continue Reading

Nestle’s Makes the Very Best Peanut Decision

March 19's House hearings on food safety highlighted that Nestle has used its own inspectors in 2002 and 2006, who had found fault with Peanut Corporation of America's plants, while Kellogg's and others had relied on PCA's own inspections by IAB. The question is: why did Nestle's results never see the light of day and can policies be developed that allow such information to reach the public without grinding the food industry to a halt?… Continue Reading

Nitty-Gritty on Menu Labeling Regulations and What Can Be Done to Stem Consumer Litigation

As restaurant chains operating in King County, Washington are readying to comply with the new menu labeling law, serious questions arise. Does each menu item have to be sent to an expensive lab for testing? How accurate does the nutritional information need to be? How does a restaurant account for the inevitable variables of made-to-order … Continue Reading

California Menu Labeling Laws–Restaurants Beware of Asking What Your Customer Wants!

Yesterday, California became the first state in the Union to write into law menu labeling requirements. Like municipal ordinances recently enacted in New York City and Seattle, the California law requires certain “chain” restaurants to disclose nutritional information and calorie content information for certain items. The law, to be phased in between 2009 and 2011, applies … Continue Reading

King County Menu Labeling Goes into Effect August 1, 2008–Yet Another Call for Preemption?

Effective August 1, King County, Washington, will impose the strictest menu labeling law in the nation. King County’s law imposes menu labeling requirements, on restaurant chains that have the following characteristics: 1. The same name. 2. Operating permits from Public Health—Seattle and King County. 3. Fifteen or more locations in King County or nationwide—this legislation does … Continue Reading
LexBlog