The old joke of “what do Philosophy majors ask at their first job?” takes on a new meaning in the world of Prop 65.
On October 7, 2019, the California Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in Federal court for the Eastern...more
10/14/2019
/ Cancer ,
Chamber of Commerce ,
First Amendment ,
Food Labeling ,
Injunctive Relief ,
OEHHA ,
Proposition 65 ,
Public Health ,
Regulatory Requirements ,
Retail Market ,
State and Local Government ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Toxic Exposure ,
Warning Labels
As has been widely reported, in May 2018, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that Prop 65 warning labels are required to be placed on “ready-to-drink” coffee products. Acrylamide, a Prop 65 listed chemical that...more
One week after a San Francisco jury decided against Monsanto and awarded a plaintiff $289 million due to the alleged exposure that caused his cancer, the California Supreme Court refused to hear any further challenges by...more
Recently, a federal judge sitting in the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), for the first time, refused to require a manufacturer to place a Prop 65 warning on its product based on a finding that the requirement...more
Fresh off a victory in the CA primary, California Attorney General Xavier Bacerra filed suit on June 7, 2018 against Nutraceutical Corporation of Park City, Utah and Graceleigh, Inc. dba Sammy’s Milk of Newport Beach, CA,...more
As this space has discussed on several occasions, there are many issues with California’s Prop 65. In full disclosure, most of the issues I discuss here are presented from the viewpoint of businesses that find themselves at...more
Much of the recent discussion regarding Prop 65 has been focused on the regulatory changes going into effect in August of 2018. And that makes sense since there will be significant changes to the warnings, responsibility, and...more
1/11/2018
/ CA Supreme Court ,
First Amendment ,
OEHHA ,
Pesticides ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Proposition 65 ,
Safe Harbors ,
Supremacy Clause ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Toxic Exposure ,
Warning Labels ,
Websites
California’s Safe Drinking Water & Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (affectionately known as “Proposition 65”) has long been the subject of discussion, both pro and con. Much of the conversation is on various issues surrounding...more
Last month, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) adopted new Proposition 65 warning regulations. Much of the discussions regarding these new regulations have centered on the warning...more
10/12/2016
/ Amended Regulation ,
Civil Monetary Penalty ,
Enforcement Actions ,
Manufacturers ,
OEHHA ,
Proposition 65 ,
Public Comment ,
Retailers ,
Safe Harbors ,
Suppliers ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Toxic Exposure ,
Warning Labels
Auburn Courthouse Prop 65Recent attempts to modify California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Proposition 65, have been the work of the California Legislature. (See A Sane Tweak To Proposition 65 and...more
As this space has discussed, Proposition 65 has been the subject of attempts by the California Legislature to reform the enforcement of the law.
Recently, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment...more