Virginia (202) 466-6937 | Arizona (602) 388-8899

FTC’s Ban of “Biodegradable” Claims in the ECM Case Threatens an Expansion of FTC Authority (Case Comment)

By Peter A. Arhangelsky, Esq. On October 19, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission issued its Final Decision and Order (“Decision”) against ECM Biofilms, an Ohio-based company that produces additives used in plastics manufacturing.  See In re ECM Biofilms, FTC Docket No. 9358 (Oct. 19, 2015).  A copy of ECM’s press release concerning that decision is […]

FTC Bans “Biodegradable” on Products

In a decision that reverses its Administrative Law Judge and sets new national environmental policy, a Federal Trade Commission decision released on October 19, 2015 forbids the term “Biodegradable” from appearing on any product unless that product is shown to completely break down into elements in nature within five years after customary disposal.  See In re ECM […]

Biodegradable Plastics Claim Upheld Against FTC Challenge in Precedent Setting ECM BioFilm’s Case

Press Release:  February 6, 2015 For Immediate Release Contact:  Jonathan W. Emord or Peter A. Arhangelsky (202-466-6937) Washington, D.C.–On January 28, 2015, Federal Trade Commission Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell issued a precedent setting decision in the case of FTC v. ECM BioFilms, FTC Docket No. 9358. In his decision, Judge Chappell held […]

D.C. Circuit: FTC’s Two RCT Requirement Violates the First Amendment

On January 30, 2015, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia entered its decision in the case of POM Wonderful, LLC (“POM”) v. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), No. 13-1060.  In that decision, the D.C. Circuit upheld the FTC’s findings that POM violated the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”) by misleading consumers through […]

Experts Recap Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court in POM v. Coke

Oral arguments concluded on Monday, April 21, 2014,  in the POM v. Coke (Dkt. No. 12-761) case pending before the United States Supreme Court.  Click here to read what experts had to say about the arguments.  To recap, POM originally challenged Coke’s marketing for Minute Maid “Pomegranate Blueberry” fruit juice blend.  POM filed a Lanham Act […]

Attorney Peter Arhangelsky Comments on Upcoming POM v. Coke Decision

In a recent article appearing in Foodnavigator-USA.com, Emord & Associates’ principal Peter A. Arhangelsky predicts that a broad decision from the Supreme Court this year could limit food and dietary supplement manufacturers’ exposure to consumer suits in plaintiff-friendly states like California.  To get there, however, the Court must hold that the FDA is the exclusive […]

Be Careful What You Link To

As previously reported here, in the prior administration, FDA had an unwritten and informal enforcement policy that that allowed a website selling dietary supplements to link to scientific literature discussing nutrients in those supplements and diseases, provided that the page containing the scientific literature was at least “two clicks” away from product pages in question.  […]

How FDA and EFSA Prior Restraints Defeat Government Objectives and Foster Fraud and Deception

By Jonathan W. Emord FDA and EFSA censorship regimes are based on an anti-fraud or anti-deception rationale.  In short, FDA presumes that deprivation of all information not officially sanctioned that expressly or impliedly links a nutrient with a disease helps prevent consumers from being misled.  Likewise, EFSA presumes that deprivation of all information not officially […]

FDA Dislikes Supplement Company’s Facebook “Like”

Dietary supplement companies should police their social media pages for disease claims from consumers and review how their website search fields operate to reduce the risk that FDA will regulate their products as drugs.  As noted in a story by the Alliance for Natural Health, FDA recently issued two warning letters to companies based upon […]


Whether evaluating a concept, performing regulatory due diligence, maintaining or prosecuting regulatory filings, or contesting adverse litigation, Emord & Associates provides exceptional counsel for all your litigation and regulatory needs.

Virginia (Firm HQ)

11808 Wolf Run Lane
Clifton, VA 20124
Telephone: (202) 466-6937
Telecopier: (202) 466-6938

Arizona

2730 S. Val. Vista Dr.
Bldg. 6, Ste 133
Gilbert, AZ 85295
Telephone: (602) 388-8899
Telecopier: (602) 393-4361