In a landmark decision, a California appellate court ruled that only "direct" exposures are subject to Proposition ("Prop") 65 warning requirements. EHA v. Sream, Inc. (Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, September 26, 2022, certified for publication). Click here for a copy of the opinion.

Environmental General Counsel PC handled both the motion for judgment on the pleadings at the trial court level and the successful appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court decision which stated, “Plaintiff cites no case holding that a product that does not contain any chemical causing cancer or reproductive toxicity is subject to Proposition 65 merely because it could potentially be used with a substance that can be carcinogenic.”

In its reasoning, the appellate court affirmed Prop 65's original remedial purpose -- to provide informed warnings to consumers. According to the court, "[I]nterpreting the term “expose” in section 25249.6 to require a warning for any act that directly brings a consumer into contact with a listed chemical allows consumers to make such informed choices."

EGC will provide more analysis of this case and its ramifications for the Prop 65 practice in a follow-up article on this blog.