There have been several major developments in the Proposition 65 world this summer. Below we summarize these latest developments in more detail. They include: (1) the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District...more
9/7/2018
/ Appeals ,
Beverage Manufacturers ,
Environmental Litigation ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Food Labeling ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Jury Trial ,
New Regulations ,
OEHHA ,
Office of Administrative Law ,
Proposition 65 ,
Retailers ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Warning Labels
On June 15, 2018, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed a new regulation to help clarify that Proposition 65 cancer warnings are not required for coffee products. OEHHA’s proposed action is...more
On May 9, 2018, the Second Appellate District held in Charles et al. v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc., et al. that several winemakers that provided general Proposition 65 safe harbor warnings for alcoholic beverages on their...more
5/24/2018
/ Appeals ,
Arsenic ,
Beverage Manufacturers ,
OEHHA ,
Proposition 65 ,
Res Judicata ,
Safe Harbors ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Warning Labels ,
Wine & Alcohol ,
Wineries
For the past eight years, a collection of coffee brewers and retailers have been embroiled in a legal battle with Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) over whether certain coffee products sold in California...more
For the past six years, a collection of coffee brewers and retailers have been embroiled in a legal battle with Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) over whether certain coffee products sold in California must...more
1/19/2018
/ 7-Eleven ,
Auction ,
Beverage Manufacturers ,
Civil Monetary Penalty ,
Distributors ,
Exemptions ,
Grocery Stores ,
OEHHA ,
Product Labels ,
Proposition 65 ,
Retailers ,
Settlement Agreements ,
Starbucks ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Warning Labels