By Karen E. Thuermer, AJOT There’s been concern among freight forwarders and the import community regarding poorly made and even dangerous products imported from overseas. China has been one of the biggest culprits, due to the use of unsafe chemicals and such making their way into the manufacturing process. Remember the some 1.5 million Thomas and Friends wooden railway toys that were found to contain lead paint and issues with Chinese-made drywall and tainted dog food? Last year the issue particularly roared its ugly head when Rep. Betty Sutton, D-OH and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced legislation that would allow U.S. consumers to effectively sue foreign product manufacturers in U.S. courts pursuant to the Foreign Manufacturer Legal Accountability Act of 2010 (FMLAA). While the bills, HR 4678 and S 1606 never became law, they do represent ongoing concern in the marketplace as well as the power of industry’s ability to speak out and educate lawmakers of various aspects such legislation might have on business in America today. Particularly noteworthy to the freight forwarding community and U.S. importers, the FMLAA would have required foreign manufacturers of products imported into the United States to establish registered agents in the United States who are authorized to accept service of process against sue manufacturers, and for other purposes. Its goal was to provide greater protections for consumers from foreign manufacturers who operate in countries with less strict safety standards and regulations than in the United States. Numerous groups and organizations were in favor of the Act, particularly trail lawyers and domestic steel and textile industries. Case in point, Alexandra A Filutowski of the Filutowski Law Firm, PLLC pointed out during the debate that under current U.S. law, injured consumers must undergo costly investigations to locate the foreign manufacturers in their home countries and try to obtain internal documents and financial information.  She contended that the FMLAA would streamline the process and provided incentive for foreign manufacturers to achieve the highest standards of safety. She cited a variety of sources that make the same point. One, Ami Gadhia, policy counsel for the Consumers Union and publisher of Consumer Reports, stated before a Congressional hearing on the topic that “if foreign entities have the benefit of selling products and making profits from sales in the U.S., they should be accountable if the product causes harm.” Another source Filutowski cited was Andrew Popper, an American University law professor, who said the threat of lawsuits is needed to deter foreign companies from taking shortcuts in the design and manufacture of products. Filutowski maintained that if the Act were passed, consumers who are injured by products designed or manufactured overseas will more readily be able to bring a lawsuit for their injuries within the United States.  Additionally, the bill would have provided foreign manufacturers with a strong deterrent to avoid taking negligent shortcuts to increase company profits at the expense of consumer safety. Opposition Speaks Groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the Consumer Electronics Association, and the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, Inc. (NCBFAA) were especially against the legislation. Some organization opposed language in the bill that stated if a foreign producer fails to designate a registered agent, the Act would ban the importation to the United States of any products made by the producer. Determining which foreign producers would meet the minimum size requirements for falling under the Act would be left to agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. NCBFAA claimed that proposed language calling for “registered agent declarations in the United States” revealed poor understanding of existing supply chains. The group wanted that aspect of the bill r