Import Hassles
The other day I went to the store to buy some toys for my 5-month-old daughter. As I searched through shelves overflowing with colorful plastic and furry objects, I did something I never do...
July 31, 2007 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The other day I went to the store to buy some toys for my 5-month-old daughter. As I searched through shelves overflowing with colorful plastic and furry objects, I did something I never do: I looked to see where the toys were made. Anything marked “Made in China” I set aside.
I am not a patriotic consumer. My aversion to products from China was a simple issue of safety.
It started with tainted pet food, which may have killed thousands of dogs and cats in the U.S. The culprit was melamine, a cheap chemical Chinese suppliers dumped into U.S.-bound pet food to inflate protein levels. That was followed by FDA warnings that toothpaste made in China contained diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze. Then the FDA announced that Robert's American Gourmet's “Veggie Booty” snack food contained seasoning contaminated with salmonella. Robert's imported that seasoning from China. The import debacle culminated with news that the much-loved Thomas & Friends wooden train toys were coated in lead paint. The company behind the products, Illinois-based RC2 Corp., ended up recalling 1.5 million of the toys–all of which were made in China.
A number of critics are placing the blame for these incidents on U.S. regulators and the Chinese government. That's not a bad place to start. But the real blame sits squarely with the U.S. companies that are importing and distributing these goods. I find it disturbing that a company such as RC2 would sell 1.5 million toys made in factories in China without ensuring these products were safe. If the blog chatter is any indication, RC2 is going to be buried in lawsuits for this mistake. On one site–www.usrecallnews.com–parents who bought these toys for their kids were boiling over in anger. Most said they would happily join any class action filed against the company.
Unfortunately, all of this comes at a time when the business community has made significant headway in convincing Americans that tort reform is good public policy. Corporate America also has made headway with the Supreme Court, which is slowly raising the bar on the standard needed to bring cases to trial.
In the face of the China import debacle, backdating scandals and other corporate misdeeds, the public may have a tough time believing that tort reform is really in their best interest. And they might be right. Although the plaintiffs' bar doesn't always play fair, it forces companies to think twice before cutting corners.
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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
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