Would you like some cadmium with your soft drink?

Yesterday, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in conjunction with fast-food giant McDonald’s®, voluntarily recalled about 12 million Shrek Forever After™ collectible drinking glasses sold or awaiting sale at McDonald’s® locations throughout the U.S. after someone in Representative Jackie Speier's (D-CA) office alerted the CPSC that the movie-character illustrations on the glasses contained cadmium, prolonged exposure to which may pose a serious long-term health risk.

Millville, NJ-based Durand Glass Manufacturing Co. (DGMC), a subsidiary of Arques, France-based Arc International, manufactured the movie-themed glasses, which another Arc International subsidiary, Millville-based Arc International North America, distributed exclusively to McDonald's. McDonald's locations nationwide sold the glasses in May and early June 2010.

McDonald's web site addresses the recall through a series of FAQs (and answers). (For the benefit of those with short attention spans, every answer to which the statement would be germane includes the statement "the CPSC has said the glassware is not toxic.") Arc International deployed a press release. Representative Speier posted a statement on her web site, which also includes a link to a Los Angeles Times article about the recall. Only DreamWorks™ appears to be mum on the subject -- so far, at least. (Perhaps the Shrek-iverse's creators didn't retain all of the product licensing-rights like George Lucas did, not so long ago and not so far away, with the original Star Wars™ trilogy or they made McDonald's pay a non-refundable lump sum to market the glassware.) Rumors of a replacement glass featuring an image of McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner that transmogrifies into a Shrek-alike when filled with any non-Coca-Cola® brand soft or sport drink appear to be completely unfounded.

All fun aside, why is a commercial law blog interested in allegedly cadmium-contaminated glassware products introduced into the stream of commerce without any warning about or disclaimer regarding the possibility that they might contain an alleged carcinogen?

If this were a tort law or products liability blog, we might opine about the inevitable class-action product liability lawsuit against some combination of McDonald's, Arc International, Arc International North America, Durand Glass Manufacturing Co., the as-yet undisclosed supplier(s) of the cadmium-contaminated paint or other ingredient Durand used to commemorate Shrek™, Fiona™, Donkey™, and Puss in Boots™ (okay, Puss is probably not trademarked, given that the character's name dates from the late Seventeenth century, but we want to minimize our exposure to IP liability because most of us teach at public universities and neither we nor our employers can afford, in the current fiscal climate, to defend any infringement claim that survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion) on the glassware (and, perhaps, DreamWorks -- for making a movie about which McDonald's predicted sufficient interest that it undertook to procure the offending glassware for resale).

If this were a civil procedure blog we might weigh whether the terms and conditions (no doubt, conveniently located somewhere on the Internet) purportedly governing McDonald's sale of the collectible glassware unconscionably compel non-class arbitration (assuming facts not in evidence) in light of the Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (cert. granted May 24, 2010), about which my friend and UNLV colleague Jean Sternlight and my friend and ContractsProf Blog colleague Meredith Miller have recently blogged here and here, respectively.

If this were a consumer law blog, we might wring our hands or cluck our tongues at yet another clear example of Corporate America's crass exploitation of our children and squeeze-the-last-penny sellers who outsource production of low-priced, lower-cost consumer goods to Third World outposts like ... New Jersey. (Just kidding, Jay.)

But, again, what's the commercial law angle on collectible glassware manufactured for and sold to McDonald's for resale to McDonald's retail customers?

It should go without saying that the most interesting legal issues arising out of this scenario involve (1) what express and implied UCC Article 2 warranties each seller in the chain from DGMC (or DGMC's ingredient supplier) to McDonald's made to anyone who purchased or used the glassware; (2) to what extent, if any, each seller in that chain may have disclaimed some or all of its warranty liability, limited the remedies available to the buyer, user, or other person affected by the glassware's use, or both; (3) whether one or more warranty-making sellers breached one or more warranties to one or more buyer, user, or other person affected by the glassware's use; and (4) what remedies Article 2 affords any person to whom any seller is liable for breach of warranty.

For those wanting to add some international spice to the mix, the CBC reports here that the recall has spread to include all Canadian McDonald's restaurants. Information from the Associated Press and Reuters, reported here, indicates that recalling the glassware sent to Canadian McDonald's restaurants raises the total number of recalled glasses to 13.4 million. Both the U.S. and Canada are parties to the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). To the extent that the Canadian McDonald's restaurants purchased their Shrek Forever After™ collectible glassware from New Jersey-based DGMC or New Jersey-based Arc International North America, that transaction constituted a sale of specially-manufactured goods (CISG art. 3(1)), purchased for resale, rather than personal, family, or household use (CISG art. 2(a)), by a buyer located in one CISG "contracting state" from a seller located in a different "contracting state" (CISG art. 1(1)(a)). Therefore, unless the Canadian McDonald's buyers and New Jersey-based DGMC or New Jersey-based Arc International North America effectively opted out of the CISG (CISG art. 6), any breach of warranty claim the Canadian buyers might have (CISG art. 35), the extent to which any U.S. seller disclaimed any warranty or limited its liability for breaching any warranty (CISG arts. 6 & 35), and the available remedies (CISG arts. 45-52 & 74-78), will be matters for the CISG to resolve.

UCC Legislative Update

It has been a fairly quiet eight months on the UCC legislative front since my last update.

Revised Article 1

As of March 1, 2010, Revised Article 1 was in effect in thirty-seven states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

State legislatures continue to grapple with the definition of "good faith," although the uniform § R1-201(b)(20) definition has the upper hand. Of the 37 enacting states, 26 have adopted the uniform definition, while 11 have retained the pre-revised definition that, in conjunction with § 2-103(1)(b), imposes a different good faith standard on merchants and non-merchants. Effective July 1, 2010, one of those eleven minority states (Indiana) will join the majority as SB 501, enacted in 2009 primarily for the purpose of amending Articles 3 and 4, also revises Ind. Code § 26-1-1-201(19) to require all parties to act honestly and to observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. (At present, Indiana's Revised Article 1 requires only “honesty in fact.”) This change will take effect July 1, 2010, and further tip the balance among enacting states in favor of the unitary good faith definition in uniform R1-201(b)(20).

With many state legislatures occupied with more pressing issues of the moment, 2009 yielded only three new adoptions -- Alaska, Maine, and Oregon -- down from five in 2008, and seven in 2007. While a downward trend in new enactments eventually becomes inevitable once two-thirds of the states have signed on, 2009's three enactments were the fewest in a year since 2003 (when Idaho became the third state overall to enact Revised Article 1).

As of March 1, only two states -- Mississippi and Wisconsin -- appear to be serious candidates to enact Revised Article 1 in 2010.

Mississippi SB 2419, introduced and amended (to replace a choice-of-law provision that appeared to have derived from the original § R1-301 that all 37 enacting states have declined to adopt and the ALI and NCCUSL have disavowed with one that reflected the substitute § R1-301 the ALI and NCCUSL promulgated in 2008) in January, unanimously passed the Mississippi Senate on February 10. It is presently before the House Judiciary Committee.

Wisconsin AB 687, introduced on January 25 and amended on February 16 to replace the uniform R1-201(b)(20) "good faith" definition with the pre-revised 1-201(19) version, received the Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions's unanimous approval on February 26. It is presently before the Assembly Rules Committee.

Two other bills, Massachusetts HB 89 and Washington SB 5155, seem less likely to produce results.

Massachusetts HB 89, the fifth attempt to enact Revised Article 1 in the Commonwealth, was assigned to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies on January 20, 2009. No further action had been reported as of March 1, 2010.

Washington SB 5155, introduced on January 15, 2009, appeared to be drawn directly from the language of official Revised Article 1 circa 2001, including the original version of § R1-301. At an initial public hearing on January 23, 2009, all those testifying in support of and in opposition to the bill opposed the choice-of-law provision. The Washington Senate appears to have taken no further action except to "reintroduce and retain [the bill] in present status" on January 11, 2010.


Article 2 and 2A Amendments

As of March 1, 2010, only three state legislatures (Kansas, Nevada, and Oklahoma) have considered bills proposing to enact the 2003 amendments to UCC Articles 2 and 2A. The Kansas and Nevada bills died on the vine.

In 2005, Oklahoma amended Sections 2-105 and 2A-103 of its Commercial Code to add that the definition of “goods” for purposes of Articles 2 and 2A, respectively, “does not include information,” see 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-105(1) & 2A-103(1)(h) (West 2009), and amended its Section 2-106 to add that “contract for sale” for purposes of Article 2 “does not include a license of information,” see id. § 2-106(1). The net effect is similar to having enacted Amended §§ 2-103(k) & 2A-103(1)(n), both of which exclude information from the meaning of “goods” for purposes of Article 2 and 2A, respectively. Otherwise, no state has enacted any of the 2003 amendments.

While the list of states enacting any of the 2003 amendments may not change in the near future, the number of amendments Oklahoma enacts may. Introduced on February 1, 2010, Oklahoma HB 3104 proposes amendments to forty-nine sections of Article 2 and four sections of Article 2A. The bill includes neither the reformulation of Sections 2-206 and 2-207 nor the addition of Sections 2-313A and 2-313B included in the 2003 Article 2 amendments. Many of the amendments appear designed to facilitate electronic signatures and transactions and to accommodate the terminology surrounding them that grows out of UETA, E-SIGN, and Revised UCC Articles 1 and 7, or to otherwise align Article 2 and 2A terminology with that used in Revised Articles 1 and 7. That is not to say that HB 3104 proposes only cosmetic changes to Oklahoma's versions of Articles 2 and 2A. Several of the proposed amendments alter existing substantive rights, obligations, or remedies. Some of those alterations (e.g., raising the § 2-201 floor from $500 to $5,000) do not seem to be inherently controversial; some (e.g., granting/recognizing a right to cure after a justifiable revocation) may or may not be controversial depending on how courts have interpreted the current Article 2; and some (e.g., giving sellers the right to recover consequential damages) do seem inherently controversial. More on this if the bill progresses.


Article 3 and 4 Amendments

As of March 1, 2010, the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4 were in effect in eight states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma (for a second time), South Carolina, and Texas. They will take effect in Indiana on July 1, 2010.

As of March 1, 2010, the only pending Articles 3 and 4 bill is Massachusetts HB 90, which has been languishing for more than a year.


Revised Article 7

As of March 1, 2010, Revised UCC Article 7 was in effect in thirty-six states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Additional bills are currently pending in Georgia, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin; but only the Wisconsin bill appears to be making any progress.

First introduced on February 18, 2009, Georgia HB 451 won unanimous approval in the Georgia House on March 12, and the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage on March 26. However, the legislature adjourned on April 3 without a third reading and final action in the senate. HB 451 was "recommitted" to the Georgia Senate on January 11, 2010. No further action has been reported.

Massachusetts HB 89, which also proposes adopting Revised Article 1, was assigned to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies on January 20, 2009. No further action has been reported.

Washington SB 5154 was introduced on January 15, 2009, scheduled for a public hearing on January 23, 2009, and then stalled, like its Revised Article 1 counterpart, but without as compelling a reason. It was "reintroduced and retained in present status" on January 11, 2010. No further action has been reported.

Wisconsin AB 688 was introduced on January 25, 2010. On February 22, the Assembly Committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business unanimously recommended passage. The bill is now before the Assembly Rules Committee.

iPhones, Kindles, and Digital Rights Management -- When the Sale of Things are not the only things that matter

So I have been thinking of how to talk about (shamelessly plug) my recent work on Apple's iPhone warranty. The article argues that Apple might be better off not litigating its intellectual property rights against consumers and instead using their warranties as a bait to convince consumers to act with good behavior to the iPhone (i.e. not hack it and therefore avoid the service arrangement Apple receives comensation through with AT&T). Last week I wrote a column for the Los Angeles Daily Review in which I said that gateway sales were possibly more important to certain vendors of high end consumer products than the thing itself:

In the high-tech consumer arena, device sales often are the gateway to other profits beyond the sale. Apple receives monthly compensation from AT&T for every iPhone that reaches the AT&T network. X-Box, Sony, and Nintendo reap profits from pay-to-play online gamer services like X-Box Live, Nintendo DSi, and Playstation Network, in addition to the stand alone games they sell in stores. Sony Blueray sells DVD Players -- but is far more interested in selling consumers DVD's from the Sony library. And the recent Amazon Kindle is poised to make a significant dent in the book seller market. Post-sale profits have become such a large factor that some manufacturers value those profits more than those made on the device itself. If those post-sale profits don't materialize, the potential loss for companies like Apple is enourmous -- conservatively between $3 million and $18 million per month for iPhones that never reach the AT&T network.

So how do you entice consumers to act better with their products. One means of doing so has been to "brick" the device so that the cnsumer has no more functional use (or desired use from the product). Hackers use the term brick because to them, the device obtains the value of a brick. Microsoft has been successful in "bricking" users from their x-Box Live accounts for invalid use, by banning user accounts for 7992 years (or until 12/31/9999). And Amazon, most recently terminated a user account for "frequent returns" effectively blocking the user from using his Kindle. Amazon ultimately relented, but the warning was served.

The problem with "bricking" is that it is only a temporary solution until consumers (or another third party) catch up technologically to offer a better use. In fact, the reality is that there are consumers that actually do buy the product to have the product. Consumers that have been bricked will eventually grow weary of paying for new accounts, buying new devices or whatever means the manufacturer has used to keep the user out. Then, those bricks will eventually form cities/ communities of disgruntled dwellers that have the technological knowledge and incentive to find alternative uses for their product, particularly in ways that do not benefit the manufacturer.

The solution I have offered, in both the Duke Law and Technology piece and the L.A. Daily Review, is that manufacturers should reevaluate how they approach these consumers. Indeed, Manufacturers may find better profits by approaching consumers on a negotiated terms basis utilizing things like warranties as enticements. By enticing the consumer to be better stewards of the product, they can probably avoid most hackers (except for those that do so for the pure sport of it).

Over the next few weeks I will say more about the longer piece including the Behavioral Economics Aspect of the article and some other commercial solutions for a not entirely commercial problem.

Marc (MLR)