News & Analysis as of

Proposition 65 Appeals

Perkins Coie

Weekly Notable Ruling Roundup - January 2024

Perkins Coie on

National Association of Wheat Growers, et al. v. Rob Bonta, - No. 20-16758 (9th Cir.—November 7, 2023): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor. The panel held...more

ArentFox Schiff

Prop 65 Roundup - December 2023

ArentFox Schiff on

Third Time’s A Charm: California Re-Introduces Proposed Changes to Proposition 65’s Warnings and Safe Harbor Requirements - On October 27, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

The Intersection of Prop 65 and Free Speech: A Recent Win for Businesses

Under California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”), businesses are required to give “clear and reasonable warnings” to consumers regarding potential chemical exposure if their product contains a chemical “known to the state to...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Up In Smoke – CA Court of Appeal Dismisses Prop 65 Case Against Water Pipe Manufacturer Narrowly Construing The Term “Expose”

California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq.) (“Prop 65”) is a California law that prohibits any person in the course of doing business from “knowingly and...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendants in Proposition 65 Coffee Case

After 12 years of litigation, coffee manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are one step closer to closing the door on Proposition 65 warnings on coffee. Coffee generally does not require Proposition 65 warnings—this...more

Perkins Coie

California State Appeals Court Affirms Bong Maker’s Win in Prop. 65 Suit

Perkins Coie on

A California state appeals court affirmed a bong maker’s win in a suit alleging it violated California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by failing to warn consumers that its products expose them to marijuana smoke that could cause...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

California: No Jury Trials in Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law Cases (and Proposition 65 Cases?)

The California Supreme Court held there is no statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial in actions brought under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL). Its reasoning and basis likely...more

BCLP

California Prop. 65 Regulation Exempts Certain Coffee Chemicals From Cancer Warning; Stay in Coffee Case Lifted

BCLP on

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) has finalized a highly anticipated Proposition 65 regulation relating to coffee. The regulation, California Code of Regulations Section 25704, takes...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

More Tinkering at the Edges of Prop 65

The California Assembly passed a bill (AB 1123) earlier this month that would require litigants in private Proposition 65 enforcement actions to notify the state Attorney General (AG) of any appeals in such cases. Current...more

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

Food & Beverage Litigation Update l April 2019 #3

FSMA, Prop. 65 and Supply Chain Issues Among Subjects of Food Law Conferenc - In-house and outside counsel joined representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Agriculture (USDA) and...more

Buchalter

New Life For A Dormant Defense: Do Proposition 65 Warnings Violate The First Amendment?

Buchalter on

Can you be forced to slap language on a product you sell that not only do you not agree with but which can be false or misleading – and scare your customers? In California the answer is yes. But that may be finally...more

Downey Brand LLP

The Latest in the Prop. 65 World: Jury Trials; Inorganic Arsenic in Rice; and the FDA Weighs in on Coffee

Downey Brand LLP on

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

Hogan Lovells

California Appeals Court Reverses Decision Requiring Proposition 65 Warnings on Cereals for Acrylamide

Hogan Lovells on

A California appeals court has reversed a trial court decision that would require businesses to post Proposition 65 cancer warnings on certain breakfast cereals for acrylamide. The court ruled that a Proposition 65 warning...more

Downey Brand LLP

Court Determines Breakfast Cereal Currently Does Not Require Prop 65 Warnings

Downey Brand LLP on

A recent appellate decision from the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles has determined that breakfast cereals do not require a Proposition 65 warning for acrylamide. Post Foods, LLC v. Superior Court of Los...more

Perkins Coie

Precedent-Setting Proposition 65 Pre-emption Decision Involving Breakfast Cereal

Perkins Coie on

Last week, the California Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff’s suit seeking to require Proposition 65 acrylamide based cancer warnings on 59 popular breakfast cereals was preempted by federal nutrition policies aimed at...more

Downey Brand LLP

Winemakers Prevail in Arguing That Providing Current Safe Harbor Warning for Alcoholic Beverages Is Compliant with Prop 65

Downey Brand LLP on

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

Allen Matkins

Court Holds International Cancer Agency Is Not A Private Corporation

Allen Matkins on

More than a half century ago, the World Health Assembly established the International Agency for Research on Cancer as the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization. Although headquartered in Lyon, France,...more

Downey Brand LLP

The Latest in the Prop. 65 World: Processed Meat; Lead and Cadmium in Chocolate; and Glyphosate in Herbicides

Downey Brand LLP on

February was a busy month in the Proposition 65 world with two developments that may impact businesses that manufacture or sell processed meat or chocolate products. In addition, the United States District Court for the...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Impact of California Appellate Decision on Proposition 65 Actions Unclear

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

On April 28, 2015, the Environmental Law Foundation (“ELF”) filed a petition in the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., et...more

McGuireWoods LLP

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

McGuireWoods LLP on

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

Mintz - Consumer Product Safety Viewpoints

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

21 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide