NY AG Sues Walmart, Target and Toy Importer Over Lead Compliance
The jewelry-making kits already were recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, but the suit filed on Thursday in state Supreme Court in New York still seeks civil penalties and a court order to require the companies to implement additional compliance measures.
December 14, 2018 at 04:40 PM
4 minute read
As Walmart Inc. shakes up its global compliance department, the retailer is being sued along with Target Corp. and importer LaRose Industries by New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood for allegedly selling toys that contained more than 10 times the federal legal limit of lead.
The toys already were recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. But the suit filed on Thursday in state Supreme Court in Albany County still seeks civil penalties and a court order to require the companies to implement additional compliance measures ensuring that they do not again sell toys containing high lead levels.
Walmart gave this statement to a reporter on Friday: “We take our customers' safety seriously and require our suppliers to meet all safety standards.”
The Walmart statement added that as soon as LaRose Industries made Walmart aware of the product recall nearly three years ago, “we removed the items from our shelves and online and haven't sold them since. We've discussed this matter with the New York Attorney General's office and will address the allegations and demands with the court.”
Target sent a statement saying, “As soon as the New York Attorney General let us know about the allegations with this product after its testing back in 2016, we immediately and voluntarily pulled the bracelet kit from our stores. We're committed to providing high quality and safe products to our guests, and we require all of our vendors to follow safety laws and CPSC [Consumer Product Safety Commission] guidelines for the products they sell at Target.”
LaRose Industries did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Walmart, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, is the world's largest retailer; Minneapolis-based Target calls itself the second-largest general merchandise retailer in the U.S.; while LaRose, with one office in Randolph, New Jersey, is an importer with 11 to 15 employees, according to LinkedIn.
In a statement Underwood said, “Our lawsuit seeks to hold these companies accountable for the failures that allowed lead-contaminated toys on store shelves, while forcing them to take responsibility for the safety of the products they sell.”
According to the CPSC, which issued the 2016 recall, the toy was Cra-Z-Jewelz Gem Creations, a jewelry-making kit. The kit “contains high levels of lead. If ingested by young children, it can cause adverse health issues,” the CPSC website said. About 175,000 kits were recalled nationwide, it said.
The New York AG's office said LaRose already has adopted a number of affirmative measures to ensure that the imported toys they sell comply with federal lead limits. The suit asks the court to direct LaRose to maintain these measures and to take additional measures, including:
• Create a permanent position of director of sourcing and quality control, as well as a quality control manual and a compliance program.
• Require vendors of finished products to obtain high-risk components and raw materials from pre-approved suppliers.
• Require vendor testing of toy components and raw materials.
• Conduct unannounced audits of vendors.
• Provide certificates of compliance to retailers.
The suit asks that Target also meet those requirements, because it imported some of the kits on its own.
Underwood said Target and Walmart “have thus far refused requests” to take certain affirmative measures to ensure they don't import toys with high lead content. The lawsuit asks the court to order the two retailers to adopt compliance measures that include conducting random tests on 3 percent of imported toys to ensure they comply with applicable regulations; and ensuring each imported toy has a valid certificate of compliance.
Underwood's office said civil penalties could collectively range from $70 to $6,000 for each Cra-Z-Jewelz kit the companies sought to sell in New York. The massive 466-page suit, filed in Albany County Supreme Court on Thursday, said over 10,500 jewelry kits were distributed in New York.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
GC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250