[{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/ftc-wants-your-feedback-about-proposed-made-usa-rule","titre":"FTC wants your feedback about proposed Made in USA Rule","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200","description":"FTC wants your feedback about proposed Made in USA Rule lfair June 22, 2020 | 4:04PM FTC wants your feedback about proposed Made in USA Rule By Lesley Fair If your clients are interested in Made in USA issues – and you know they are – there are two developments at the FTC they need to know about. First, the FTC just announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a Made in USA Labeling Rule . You’ll want to read the notice in detail, but the proposed Rule would apply to labels on products that make unqualified Made in USA claims. (In FTC parlance, an “unqualified” claim is a broad representation made without limitations.) The proposed Rule would incorporate established guidance already set forth in FTC decisions and orders and in the agency’s 1997 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims . Consistent with that guidance, the proposed Rule would prohibit marketers from making unqualified MUSA claims on labels unless: Final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States; All significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States; and All or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States. The proposed Rule wouldn’t change or affect any other existing federal or state law or regulation relating to country-of-origin labels, but it suggests one notable modification: The proposed Rule would allow the FTC to seek civil penalties for violations. Once the proposed Rule is published in the Federal Register, we invite you to file a public comment either online or on paper. (Thanks for following the instructions for submitting comments included in the notice of proposed rulemaking.) Development #2 is that the FTC just issued a staff report on last fall’s Made in USA workshop convened to consider consumer perception of Made in USA claims and to discuss the agency’s Made in USA enforcement program. Dive into the report for the details, but according to the one panelist who provided survey evidence on how consumers understand Made in USA claims, a 2013 study suggests that almost 3 in 5 Americans agree that “Made in America” means that all parts of a product, including any natural resources it contains, originated in the United States. According to that same study, one third of consumers believe that 100% of a product must originate in a country for it to be called “made” in that country. The report cites those statistics in support of long-standing guidance in the FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims that at least a significant minority of consumers are likely to be deceived by an unqualified Made in USA claim for a product incorporating more than a trivial amount of foreign content.","id":3197412,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"The Daily Intake","id":3192489,"description":"Governor Newsom has signed California's AB 2244 , which creates the country's first voluntary non-ultraprocessed food certification program. By June 1, 2029, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) must develop a system to accredit independent certification agents that can certify food products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.” The “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” seal (proposed previously to be “California Certified”) may only be used for foods that do not qualify as an ultraprocessed food (UPF), UPF of concern, or a restricted food, as defined by California's UPF standards introduced in 2025. The program will allow certified products to display the seal on their packaging and will require manufacturers to recertify their products every three years. CDPH must create and maintain a public database of these certified products. Under the law, retailers with more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types and who generate more than $10 million in sales annually will be required to prominently display products with the seal. Earlier versions of the bill included tighter mandates for how these products are displayed and promoted, but these were removed from the final version. Governor Newsom signed AB 2244 along with other legislation that promote a “holistic healthcare strategy,” including AB 2030 (prohibiting the sale of over-the-counter diet pills or dietary supplements for weight loss or muscle building to persons under 18) and SB 869 (requiring disclosures on restaurant menus for high added sugar content). Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on developments in food-related","pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:01:24 +0200","url":"https://www.dailyintakeblog.com/2026/10/governor-newsom-signs-bill-for-non-upf-certification-program/","titre":"Governor Newsom Signs Bill for Non-UPF Certification Program"},{"titre":"FTC Challenges Anticompetitive Medical Device Deal","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/08/ftc-challenges-anticompetitive-medical-device-deal","pubDate":"Thu, 07 Aug 2025 09:48:21 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","description":"The Federal Trade Commission today moved to block medical device supplier Edwards Lifesciences Corp.’s (Edwards) proposed acquisition of JenaValve Technology, Inc. (JenaValve) due to concerns that the acquisition would limit patient access to lifesaving medical devices used to treat a potentially fatal heart condition. The FTC alleges that over the span of two days in July 2024, Edwards executed agreements to acquire both JenaValve and JC Medical, the two leading companies competing to bring to market transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices that treat a heart condition called aortic regurgitation (TAVR-AR devices). Edwards closed its acquisition of JC Medical in August 2024, and its proposed $945 million acquisition of JenaValve would combine the only two companies with ongoing clinical trials in the United States for a TAVR-AR device. The deal threatens to reduce competition in the TAVR-AR market, likely resulting in reduced innovation, diminished product quality, and potentially increased prices for consumers, according to the complaint. “ Edwards’ attempt to buy the U.S. market for TAVR-AR devices would eliminate the head-to-head competition that has spurred innovation for lifesaving artificial heart valves,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The FTC is taking action to stop this anticompetitive deal and ensure that JenaValve and Edwards’ JC Medical subsidiary continue competing to innovate, expand treatment eligibility, and keep down costs. Americans deserve all the benefits that come from competition between medical device makers, just as they do in other markets.” More than 8 million Americans suffer from aortic regurgitation, which occurs when the heart’s aortic valve does not close properly, causing blood to backflow into the heart. Currently, surgical valve replacement via open heart surgery is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved procedure to treat aortic regurgitation, and TAVR-AR devices offer a new and less invasive way to treat the condition. JenaValve is poised to become the first company to bring a TAVR-AR device, called Trilogy, to the commercial market in the United States. If Edwards acquires JenaValve, Edwards would gain control over the two most advanced TAVR-AR devices, the FTC complaint alleges. FDA approval or commercialization of any other TAVR-AR device in the United States by another company, aside from Edwards and JenaValve, is not expected for the foreseeable future. Direct head-to-head competition between Edwards, through its now-subsidiary JC Medical, and JenaValve has driven the two companies to accelerate the development of their TAVR-AR devices, the FTC’s complaint alleges. Ultimately, patients will benefit if JenaValve and Edwards continue to directly compete to complete their separate TAVR-AR device clinical trials, product improvements, and commercialization plans. The competition concerns caused by Edwards’ dual acquisition strategy are predicated on Edwards owning both JenaValve and JC Medical simultaneously, but Edwards has elected to attempt to buy JenaValve while retaining its ownership of JC Medical. Edwards has not been willing to engage on divesting JC Medical to resolve the competition concerns with the proposed JenaValve acquisition, according to the complaint. The Commission vote to issue an administrative complaint and authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction was 3-0. The federal court complaint and request for preliminary relief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to halt the transaction pending an administrative proceeding. NOTE : The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of the administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be tried in a formal","id":2298968},{"description":"Brussels, 06 May - During its latest plenary, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted an opinion on the European Commission’s draft adequacy decision under the GDPR concerning the European Patent Organisation (EPO) . In addition, the Board adopted an opinion on the European Commission’s proposal to extend the validity of the UK adequacy decisions under the GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive (LED) . Finally, the EDPB agreed to grant the status of observer to the Personal Data Protection Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   Adequate protection of personal data by the EPO At the European Commission’s request, the Board adopted an opinion on the Commission’s draft adequacy decision regarding the European Patent Organisation (EPO). Once formally adopted by the Commission, this will be the first adequacy decision concerning an international organisation and not a country or a region. An adequacy decision is a key-mechanism in EU data protection legislation which allows the European Commission to determine whether a third country or an international organisation offers an adequate level of data protection. The effect of such a decision is that personal data can flow freely from Europe to that third country or international organisation. EDPB Chair, Anu Talus, said: “The EDPB welcomes the Commission’s initiative to work on the first adequacy decision concerning an international organisation. This decision shows how the legal framework of such organisations can be recognised as ensuring an adequate level of protection on the basis of Art.45 GDPR. The EDPB underlines the importance of ongoing dialogue between the Commission and international organisations, with a view to developing this category of adequacy decisions in addition to those relating to third countries.” In its opinion, the Board positively notes that the EPO data protection framework is largely aligned with the European Union data protection framework, including on data protection rights and principles. This shows that the GDPR and, in particular, its transfer provisions, can facilitate safe data flows from Europe to international organisations, while taking into account their status.   Six-month extension of the UK adequacy decisions The EDPB opinion, requested by the European Commission, addresses the proposed extension of the two UK adequacy decisions under the GDPR and the LED, which are set to expire on 27 June 2025. The opinion only concerns the proposed 6-month extension of these adequacy decisions and does not address the level of protection for personal data afforded in the UK, which will be examined by the EDPB following the Commission’s assessment, and if the renewal of the UK adequacy decisions is proposed. Since the UK‘s data protection reform is still pending in the UK parliament, the EDPB recognises the need for a technical and time-limited extension of the adequacy decisions until 27 December 2025.This will give the European Commission sufficient time to evaluate the updated UK legal framework once it has been adopted.   The EDPB stresses that this extension is exceptional and is due to the ongoing legislative developments in the UK. It should not, in principle, be further prolonged. The Board recalls the validity of its opinions 14/2021 and 15/2021 on the two UK adequacy decisions, adopted in April 2021, and invites the European Commission to take them into account in its future assessments.  The Board also recalls the Commission’s obligation to monitor all relevant developments in the UK during the extension period.   New observer to the EDPB’s activities Finally, EDPB members agreed to grant observer status to the EDPB’s activities to the Bosnia and Herzegovina Data Protection Authority, in line with Art. 8 EDPB Rules of Procedure .","id":2099053,"source":"EDPB News","titre":"European Patent Organisation and extension of adequacy decisions for the UK: EDPB adopts opinions","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/european-patent-organisation-and-extension-adequacy-decisions-uk-edpb-adopts_en","pubDate":"Tue, 06 May 2025 15:51:59 +0200"}]