Proposition 65

News & Analysis as of

Arsenic in Wine: What You Need to Know About the Class Action Claims

What is the Doris Charles, et al. v. The Wine Group, et al., No. BC576061 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles County) lawsuit? A lawsuit filed last week as a class action against wineries, wine distributors and wine retailers...more

Calif. Appellate Court Endorses Averaging Lead Exposure in Food and Beverage Prop. 65 Disputes

In a rare published decision concerning California’s expansive Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as “Prop 65,” the California Court of Appeal on March 17, 2015, dealt companies a victory in...more

Product Liability 2014 Year in Review

In This Issue: - Letter From The Chair - Key Practice Trends + Highlights - Consumer Products - Pharmaceutical Products and Medical Devices - Aviation - Toxics Regulation and Toxic...more

California Appellate Court Takes on Proposition 65 Warning Triggers

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

Appellate Court Gets It Right: Realistic Product Use Data Can Be Used by Businesses to Defend Lawsuits

California’s First District Court of Appeal issued a unanimous and potentially far-reaching and precedent-setting decision on March 17, 2015, siding with businesses in our defeat of a lawsuit that sought to require cancer and...more

Proposed Changes to Proposition 65: What It Means for Texas Businesses

If you’ve been to California recently, you likely returned with a heightened awareness of the dangers present in the products you consume and use on a daily basis. That is because in California, Proposition 65 requires...more

California Appellate Court Agrees with Defendants on Prop. 65 Exposure Averaging

In one of the most significant appellate decisions interpreting California’s Prop. 65, the California Court of Appeal on March 17 ruled that, for purposes of establishing the Prop. 65 “safe harbor” defense, exposure to a...more

A Sane Tweak to Proposition 65

This space has addressed on several occasions recent attempts to modify California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65. Many of the comments on proposed changes to...more

Medical Monitoring For Soft Drink Purchasers: Not The Choice For This Generation

Those of us who have been paying at least marginal attention to developments in popular culture and product liability law—not necessarily the fanatical level of attention to these subjects paid by certain of our...more

Prop 65 Amendment Would Limit Frivolous Claims and “Overwarning”

Legislation was introduced in the California Assembly last week to provide much-needed relief from frivolous Proposition 65 claims and avoid “over-warning” the public where scientific evidence shows that products or premises...more

New Proposed Requirements for Prop 65 Warnings Create Potentially Significant Implications for Businesses Across the Country

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently sent out a notice regarding proposed rulemaking to repeal the existing regulations that govern the provision of clear and reasonable warnings...more

Proposed Prop 65 Rules Won't Please Calif. Businesses

California’s Proposition 65 warning requirements (Health & Safety Code Sections 25249.6 et seq.) have long been a major concern for businesses that want their products offered for sale in the state’s large marketplace....more

Proposition 65: OEHHA Proposes Revisions to Proposition 65 Warning Regulations

On January 12, 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed important new regulations that would repeal and replace the existing Article 6 regulations regarding the all-important "clear and...more

California Earthquake: “Proposition 65” About to be Rocked?

California’s “Proposition 65” warning requirements (Health & Safety Code Sections 25249.6 et seq.) have long been a major concern for businesses that want their products offered for sale in the State’s large marketplace....more

Proposition 65 May Mean More Than Warning Signs and Lawsuits

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

Proposition 65 Plaintiff Group Seeks to Rescind “Safe Harbor” Standard for Lead

Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation, which has a long history as a Proposition 65 plaintiff, filed a writ petition earlier this week seeking to challenge and rescind the “safe harbor” level for lead under Proposition 65. ...more

New Requirements for Proposition 65 Warnings Proposed

On January 12, 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed the first significant revisions to Proposition 65’s warning requirements since the 1980s. The updated regulations seek to...more

2015 May Bring Significant (More Burdensome) Changes to Proposition 65 Warning Requirements

Following Governor Jerry Brown’s call in mid-2013 for reform of Proposition 65, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the state agency that writes the regulations governing Proposition 65,...more

Will the “Naturally Occurring” Exemption for Food (and Supplements) Become an Achievable Defense in 2015?

What is the “Naturally Occurring” Defense? - One of the few defenses available to a company under Proposition 65 is the “Naturally Occurring” exemption for “food.” (CA Code of Regulations, Title 27, § 25501). Food...more

New Proposed Proposition 65 Warning Requirements: What You Need To Know

On January 12, 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) released the long anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes changes to the warning requirements under Proposition...more

OEHHA Proposes New Proposition 65 Warning Regulations

On January 12, 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) published two notices of proposed rulemaking regarding the State’s Proposition 65 warning regulations. OEHHA proposes to repeal...more

California Proposition 65 Warning Requirements for DINP Effective December 20, 2014

On December 20, 2014, California’s Proposition 65 warning requirements for consumer, occupational, and environmental exposures to diisononyl phthalate (“DINP”) will take effect. ...more

For better or worse: OEHHA solicits input on Proposition 65 revisions

Introduction - Earlier in 2014 California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which is charged with implementation of the state's controversial Proposition 65 law, released a pre-regulatory...more

Battle of the Experts Still Brewin’ in Starbucks Trial

In April 2010, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) sued Starbucks Corp. and other coffee sellers alleging they violated California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, passed by California...more

Proposition 65 Warning Requirement for DINP Set to Take Effect in December

Beginning December 20, 2014, companies with ten or more employees that manufacture, distribute or sell products in California containing Diisononyl phthalate (DINP) will be required to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings...more

61 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3