Prop 65

Subscribe to Prop 65 via RSS

Many of us think of coffee as a morning essential, however, there has been a long running debate between California regulators, courts, business, and consumer advocates regarding whether coffee must have a Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) warning for cancer.  The debate stems from the fact that roasted coffee beans, and coffee brewed from those beans, contain acrylamide – a chemical of concern under Prop 65 because of potential cancer risks.  This article discusses the opinions of various research groups regarding the noncarcinogenic nature of acrylamide, as well as a recent lawsuit initiated by the California Chamber of Commerce against the California Attorney General to end the need to warn for acrylamide.
Continue Reading Prop 65 Warnings and Acrylamide in Food – Can I Still Have My Coffee and Drink it Too?

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently adopted amendments to California Code of Regulations, section 25600.2 – the section titled “Responsibility to Provide Consumer Product Exposure Warnings.”  These amendments provide more specific guidance for manufacturers, retailers and other businesses in the chain of commerce on how to satisfy their responsibilities to provide consumer product exposure warnings for chemicals listed under Proposition 65. The amendments become effective on April 1, 2020.
Continue Reading Proposition 65: California Clarifies Responsibilities To Warn Amongst Manufacturers, Distributors and Retailers

If your products are sold online or you operate a website with sales to consumers in California, these changes will impact whether you can obtain “safe harbor” protection under Prop 65.

Over a year after adopting new regulations—which were crafted through an exhaustive 3 year rulemaking process of public workshops, public comments, and revisions to address stakeholders’ concerns—California’s OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) issued a guidance document purporting to change the answer to the question of whether a website warning is sufficient to qualify for “safe harbor” protection or whether a separate type of warning must be provided to the consumer in addition to the website warning. OEHHA, the state entity charged with managing Prop 65, quietly changed its position on the subject and offered so-called “guidance” that imposes much more onerous obligations. If you have already assessed whether you company is in compliance and ready for the new regulations, you should consider reviewing them again.
Continue Reading Under the Radar Changes to Proposition 65 – OEHHA Issues New “Guidance” For Web Purchases (Is it an Illegal “Underground Regulation”?)

What is Prop 65?

Prop 65 is a California law that requires California consumers receive warnings regarding the presence of chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The law is highly technical, constantly evolving and actively enforced by the government and private enforcers.
Continue Reading WARNING: Prop 65 Has Changed – If Your Product Is Sold In California Or You Do Business In California, Pay Attention

Summary

Prop 65 Plaintiffs routinely file most Prop 65 cases in Alameda County, presumably because they believe it is a plaintiff-friendly forum. However, the California Court of Appeal recently issued a victory for Prop 65 defendants, finding that Prop 65 matters may be transferred to the venue where the cause arose. Dow Agrosciences LLC v. Superior Court (2017 1st Dist.)16 Cal.App.5th 1067.[1]
Continue Reading Prop 65 Victory For Defendants – Defendants Are Entitled To Have Their Cases Heard In the County Where the Claim Arose

In a recent trial in Los Angeles Superior Court in the matter AFS Enterprises, LLC, v. Reckitt Benckiser, PLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC539678, the plaintiff brought a single claim under Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, California Health and Safety Code sections 25249.1 et seq.) against the makers of Brasso, a brass polish, arguing that the manufacturer was obligated to provide a Proposition 65 warning for the product.  Proposition 65 requires manufacturers and retailers to provide warnings for products sold to California consumers if the products expose consumers to certain chemicals including lead.  Here, the plaintiff’s argument was unique.  Although Brasso itself does not contain lead, the plaintiff argued that a warning was nevertheless required because the polish, when used on certain brass surfaces, releases lead. The manufacturer argued that it should be exempt from the warning requirement because the amount of lead customers are exposed to when using the polish does not exceed the “Maximum Allowable Dose Level.”  The court, after weighing testimony of the various experts at trial, issued a Statement of Decision on May 12, 2016 wherein the court ultimately agreed that the manufacturer is not required to provide a Proposition 65 warning.
Continue Reading Los Angeles Superior Court Issues Important Defense Verdict In Unique Proposition 65 Trial Against Brass-Polish Manufacturer

Many consumer-facing businesses have learned to identify high-risk Prop 65 targets:  soft, flexible plastics; faux and colored leathers; and any kind of brass or metal that may contain lead or other heavy metals.  But businesses need to take action to avoid Prop 65 liability based on a new culprit: bisphenol-A (BPA) that may be lurking in your cash register receipts and other thermal papers. 
Continue Reading A Proposition 65 Violation May Be Lurking in Your Cash Register Receipt

By Meredith Jones-McKeown

The chemical commonly known as “TDCPP” or “Tris” [Tris(1,2-dichloro-2-proply) phosphate)] is commonly used as a flame retardant in home furnishings (couches, chairs, pillows, and ottomans) as well as automotive products (seat padding, overhead liners, foams, and infant car seats). In October 2011, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) listed TDCPP as a chemical on Proposition 65 list of chemicals.Continue Reading Flame Retardant Commonly Used in Furniture Added to Proposition 65 Chemical List

By Heather Plocky

In January, the Attorney General released a guidance document that details what the state will and will not approve in future private Proposition 65 lawsuit settlements[1]. This guidance provides clarity to both plaintiffs and businesses and is intended to limit the scope of any “public interest release” that plaintiffs can offer.Continue Reading Proposition 65 Private Party Settlement Guidance Provides Clarity and a Limitation on Releases in the Public Interest

In Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enterprises of America, et al., 129 Cal. App. 4th 540 (2005), the California Court of Appeal (2nd District) reviewed and rejected as invalid certain notices served by plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group (CAG) on numerous hotels and retail establishments under Proposition 65. The court accordingly upheld the trial court’s dismissal of CAG’s claims against those defendants upon whom CAG served invalid notices.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of Claims Based on Overbroad Prop 65 Notices