P: (602) 334-
Peter A. Arhangelsky joined Emord & Associates in 2007. He is a principal in the firm. He assists a wide range of businesses (often FDA-regulated entities) in navigating regulatory- and litigation-based concerns at all levels.
His practices include food and drug law, deceptive advertising, health law, contract and licensing, civil litigation, appellate advocacy, and constitutional law. Among his expertise in commercial and business litigation, he litigates unfair competition matters, including claims related to food and drug advertising. He handles complex civil matters and appeals within the administrative agencies and before the federal courts, including constitutional and administrative matters before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Mr. Arhangelsky counsels clients on matters of regulatory compliance involving dietary supplements, foods, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and other product categories regulated by Federal Agencies and their state analogues. He has particular experience counseling companies that sell, market, or distribute dietary supplements and food products. From the concept phase through global marketing, Mr. Arhangelsky has considerable experience and ability to help clients navigate nuanced laws and regulations that govern those highly regulated businesses. He has extensive experience in labeling and advertising reviews, product strategy, and regulatory affairs consultations. He has authored articles on medical device regulation, and been interviewed in legal circulars as an expert on FDA law, advertising law, administrative law, and constitutional issues. He has experience in medical device regulation, which includes assistance in areas such as pre-
Mr. Arhangelsky is also an experienced litigator who represents clients in complex matters concerning regulated products, corporate disputes, Lanham Act claims, state and federal business torts, constitutional law, unfair competition, and advertising (including federal, state, administrative, and private actions, e.g., National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureaus). His experience includes substantial work in California concerning consumer product lawsuits, Unfair Competition claims, and similar torts advanced against regulated entities. Mr. Arhangelsky is licensed to practice in California state and federal courts where he has successfully managed many legal threats against businesses selling or distributing product into California. Those matters include lawsuits filed under Proposition 65, the CLRA, the UCL, and various other statutes commonly invoked by California Plaintiffs. He has also represented health care providers in matters before the California licensing bodies, and in response to threatened litigation under the California laws and regulations. Mr. Arhangelsky represents Network Marketing Companies in regulatory concerns and litigation. He has experience with intellectual property disputes commonly affecting most businesses, including litigation over trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. He has litigated and resolved issues pertaining to infringement and misappropriation, including torts related to intentional interference with business. That work also includes evaluation of contract-related disputes, including manufacturing and retail agreements, or disputes over restrictive covenants like non-compete or non-disclosure agreements.
Mr. Arhangelsky has extensive experience litigating and resolving advertising-related disputes. A primary area of his practice includes advertising law, which encompasses overlapping First Amendment issues. He has been lead counsel in complex advertising lawsuits involving private businesses, the FTC, and individual plaintiffs. Those lawsuits commonly proceed under state laws like the California False Advertising Law (FAL), the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), or the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). At the federal level, advertising litigation often proceeds under the Lanham Act. Mr. Arhangelsky has a record of success managing those types of claims. He has represented parties in litigation under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act), which relates to white collar activity. He has significant experience managing complex e-discovery issues, including cases that have involved volumes electronic data and records.
His cases have included representation of corporations before the Federal Trade Commission in Part III administrative trials. His litigation experience also includes FDA and DEA enforcement actions and administrative hearings. He has appellate experience before state and federal courts, including federal circuit courts of appeal. He serves as a litigation consultant in complex matters involving the jurisdiction of the federal agencies. He served as counsel in the following representative cases: Alliance for Natural Health U.S. v. Sebelius, 786 F.Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011) (holding that FDA’s rewording of health claims for dietary supplement products violated First Amendment); Alliance for Natural Health U.S. v. Sebelius, 714 F.Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2010) (holding that First Amendment prohibited FDA from censoring health claims without considering appropriate disclaimers); In re Novelty Distributors, DEA Docket No. 08-
Peter was born and raised in White Plains, NY. He graduated cum laude from Suffolk University Law School in Boston, Massachusetts. He was a publishing member and later Note Editor for the Suffolk University Law Review. He was awarded one of Suffolk University’s Jurisprudence awards for his academic study in corporate law, and studied international law and international intellectual property at the University of Lünd, Sweden.
Mr. Arhangelsky was selected to Southwest Region Rising Stars list in 2017. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Suffolk University Law School, J.D.
- Cum Laude
- Suffolk University Law Review, Note Editor
University of Delaware, B.A., Political Science,
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
- Arizona State Courts & Supreme Court
- California State Courts & Supreme Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- United States District Court for the District of Arizona
- United States District Court for the Central District of California
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, MISC:
- Peter A. Arhangelsky, Note, Nullifying the Constitution: Federal Asbestos Tort Reform and the Abrogation of Seventh Amendment Rights, 40 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 95 (2006).
- “Dietary Supplements; When Food is Not Enough,” Arizona Science Center’s New Frontiers Lecture Series (Guest Speaker) (Feb. 2012)
- “9th Circuit Drops POM Bomb,” The Record Reporter (Jan. 2015) (trade article discussing POM Wonderful trademark decision by the 9th Circuit)
- “Ban On UK L’Oreal Ads Has Global Implications,” Law360.com (Aug. 26, 2011) (Quoted)
- “NY Soda Ruling May Scare Off Other Health Edicts,” Law360.com (Apr. 2013) (Quoted)
- “Preemption No Savior For Monster In Energy Drink Fight,” Law360.com (May 8, 2013) (Quoted)
- Hank Schultz, “Challenge foreseen to FDA’s exclusion of medical foods for diabetics,” Nutraingredients-
usa.com (Aug. 19, 2013) (Quoted)
- Hank Schultz, “Medical foods guidance could open avenues for dietary supplement disease claims, attorney asserts,” Nutraingredients-
usa.com (Sep. 3, 2013) (Quoted)
- “FDA Proposal Pits Importer, Supplier Against Each Other,” Law360.com (July 29, 2013) (Quoted)
- Peter A. Arhangelsky & Jonathan W. Emord, “FDA Inspection Guide (for Food and Dietary Supplements)” (2013)
- “Caramel Coloring Puts Soda Cos. In Prop 65 Crosshairs,” Law360.com (Jan. 29, 2014) (Quoted)
- Peter A. Arhangelsky & Michael H. Cohen, “What’s behind FDA’s sudden soda interest?” Daily Journal (Feb. 3, 2014) (author)
- Elaine Watson, “Big Win for Coke at Supreme Court Could Really Upset Apple Cart, Says Attorney,” www.foodnavigator-
usa.com (Apr. 18, 2014) (quoted)
- Elaine Watson, “POM v. Coke at the Supreme Court: Who came out on top?” www.nutraingredients-
usa.com (Apr. 21, 2014) (quoted)
- Navigating Drug and Medical Device Legal Issues: Leading Lawyers on Handling Trademark, Fraud, and Liability Concerns (Inside the Minds), Aspatore Books (Thomson Reuters 2014), contributing author (chapter titled “Key Concerns and Challenges for Medical Device Industry Clients”).
Recent Posts by Peter A. Arhangelsky, Esq.
- Jonathan Emord appears on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory
- PRESS RELEASE: Attorney Jonathan Emord Takes on the FDA Over Electroshock (ECT) Device
- FTC’s Ban of “Biodegradable” Claims in the ECM Case Threatens an Expansion of FTC Authority (Case Comment)
- FTC Bans “Biodegradable” on Products
- Jonathan Emord Appears on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory to Discuss the Passage of the California Vaccination Bill
- Jonathan Emord Discusses Vaccines, Personal Rights and Freedoms on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory
- Biodegradable Plastics Claim Upheld Against FTC Challenge in Precedent Setting ECM BioFilm’s Case
- Experts Recap Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court in POM v. Coke
- Attorney Peter Arhangelsky Comments on Upcoming POM v. Coke Decision
- Press Release: Emord & Associates’ Legal Analysis of Vermont Genetically Engineered Labeling Bill, H.112, Concludes Bill Is Constitutional