Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.16.23
In December 2022, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (“MoCRA”)—the most significant expansion of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's authority to regulate cosmetics in nearly 85 years—was signed into law. Among other things, MoCRA gives the FDA authority to require facility registration and reporting of serious adverse events, impose certain record-keeping obligations, recall cosmetic products, and establish good manufacturing practices. With many of MoCRA's provisions going into effect at the end of this year, cosmetics companies need to prepare to address these requirements and regulations, which may also have a considerable impact on the litigation landscape.
Crowell’s Product Risk Management team has written two publications to help cosmetics companies prepare for the big changes ahead.
See our Law360 article, “MoCRA Will Give Cosmetics Litigation A Makeover,” to learn more about the potential litigation impacts of MoCRA's requirements and steps companies can take now to manage their risk.
More extensive information on MoCRA can be found in our Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act White Paper. This white paper serves as a comprehensive overview of the history of cosmetics regulation in the United States, MoCRA’s new requirements and FDA’s new enforcement powers, potential litigation impacts, and specific action items companies can take now to best prepare themselves for MoCRA’s changes.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
