Today, August 30, 2018 … marks the date that the 2016 amendments to the warning requirements of California Proposition 65 go into full effect. This brings to a close the two year phase-in period for the new “safe harbor”...more
Historically, the bulk of Prop 65 actions have come from plaintiff attorneys sending waves of people into retail stores in California to purchase and then test products for possible exposures to listed chemicals. This...more
In a remarkable and perhaps precedent-setting decision, a California appellate court sided with cereal manufacturers in ruling that Proposition 65 cancer warnings for acrylamide were preempted by federal policy encouraging...more
We are seven weeks away from the California Proposition 65 amendments adopted in 2016 going into full effect, including substantial changes to the wording and format for providing warnings, new guidance on providing warnings...more
Responding quickly to a landmark court ruling requiring coffee sold in the state to bear a Proposition 65 warning label, California has initiated a proposed rulemaking to clarify that exposure to acrylamide and other...more
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) recently finalized substantial amendments to the regulations governing the provision of warnings required by “Proposition 65” (a/k/a the “Safe Drinking...more
May 11, 2016. A day that may live in California Proposition 65 infamy. The date marks the one –year anniversary of the listing of Bisphenol A (BPA) as a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65, and the expiration of the...more
Businesses in California have been thrown another curveball in following developments related to the state’s Proposition 65, the much-criticized statute requiring prolific warnings of exposure to toxic substances and fueling...more