15 U.S.C. § 1451
Congressional declaration of policy
Informed consumers are essential to the fair and efficient functioning of a free market economy. Packages and their labels should enable consumers to obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the contents and should facilitate value comparisons. Therefore, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to assist consumers and manufacturers in reaching these goals in the marketing of consumer goods.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case: Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977).
Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977). “The Court relies on the fact that one of the purposes of the FPLA is to "facilitate value comparisons" among consumers, 15 U. S. C. § 1451 . But merely identifying a purpose is not enough; it must also be shown that the state law inevitably frustrates that purpose.”
Canale v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 258 F. Supp. 3d 312 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “) or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.). . Oddly, despite Defendant" explicitly arguing for express preemption, {see,' e.”
Critcher v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 959 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2020). “8 The District Court concluded in the alternative that the Fair Packaging Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1451 , et seq. (“FPLA”), preempts the state-law claims as well, and that, even if neither preemption provision applied, the claims could not survive because no “reasonable…”
Uniroyal Chem. Co. v. Deltech Corp., 160 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 1998). “Comporting definitions are found in the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1451 , et seq.,19 the Magnuson-Moss Warranty--Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.”
State v. Rines, 269 A.2d 9 (Me. 1970). “This was true even before the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of November 1966, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1451 et seq., which requires truth in packaging, the significance of which is discussed below.”
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Revlon, Inc., 577 F. Supp. 477 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “Moreover, the use of a descriptive term on the package is required by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., and the related regulations, 21 C.”
Otay Land Co. v. U.E. Ltd., L.P., 440 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2006). “1998) (quoting definition in Consumer Product Safety Act and finding other similar definitions found in the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1451 , et seq., the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.”
Del Labs., Inc. v. United States, 86 F.R.D. 676 (D.D.C. 1980). “I The underlying facts in this case are as follows: The Commissioner of Food and Drugs, under authority delegated to him by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, promulgated regulations pursuant to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.,…”
Del Real, LLC v. Harris, 966 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (E.D. Cal. 2013). “, and Federal Fair Packaging and Label Act (“FFPLA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., or regulations promulgated thereunder, explicitly prohibit packages from containing “nonfunctional slack fill,” and provide specific examples of the limited circumstances in which slack fill is…”
L & L Started Pullets, Inc. v. Gourdine, 762 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1985). “105 (q) (1984); and (2) the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1451 , et seq. (1982 & Supp. 1985), which prescribes the placement, form, and contents of a label’s statement of the quantity of packaged goods, and which by its terms supersedes all local regulation that…”
Carson Prods. Co. v. Califano, 594 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1979). “Under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq., the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare is authorized to promulgate regulations for the public disclosure of the ingredients of consumer products.”
Lever Bros. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 325 F. Supp. 371 (D. Me. 1971). “They bring this action against the Federal Trade Commission and its individual members seeking declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the Commission from conducting further proceedings with respect to the proposed trade regulation rule, on the grounds that the Commission’s…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.