P: (602) 334-
Peter A. Arhangelsky joined Emord & Associates in 2007. He practices food and drug law, international food and drug law, deceptive advertising law, health law, contract and licensing law, civil litigation, appellate advocacy, and constitutional law. Mr. Arhangelsky has represented clients in federal district court, before federal administrative agencies, and in appeals. 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 the Federal Agencies and their state analogues. He has extensive experience in labeling and advertising reviews, product strategy consultations, and regulatory affairs consultations. He aids clients in bringing products from conception to market, including medical devices, dietary supplements, cosmetics, foods, and more. 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 law. He has experience in medical device regulation, which includes assistance in areas such as pre-
Mr. Arhangelsky is 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). He has represented corporations before the Federal Trade Commission in Part III administrative adjudications. He served as associate counsel in the following representative cases: Alliance for Natural Health U.S. v. Sebelius, 786 F.Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011); Alliance for Natural Health U.S. v. Sebelius, 714 F.Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2010); 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 the 2017 Southwest Region Rising Stars list. 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 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.
- 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
- Emord & Associates Cordially Invites You to A Critical Networking Event