Jeff Margulies (US)

Subscribe to all posts by Jeff Margulies (US)

ALERT: Merchants face new wave of class actions alleging excessive shipping charges

Recently filed complaints seemingly forecast a new type of class action in California courts: consumer protection claims based on allegations that merchants are overcharging consumers for shipping and delivery charges. Such claims have the potential to affect all companies selling consumer goods online or by mail order. Even though there is no specific statute forbidding … Continue reading

Shedding some light on BPA settlements

In our post last week, we outlined the terms of the first two published Proposition 65 BPA settlements, for polycarbonate drinkware. We explained that we don’t know if these settlement terms would become a standard for future settlements and compliance because of the nature of the settlements – out-of-court, with the same plaintiff and Proposition 65 plaintiffs firm. After some consideration, … Continue reading

First Proposition 65 BPA settlements hit

After months of speculation about the first BPA settlement reformulation standards, we have our first clue: 1,000 parts per million with an option to warn. Serial polycarbonate drinking glass user Anthony Ferreiro resolved his allegations of BPA exposure without a warning from polycarbonate drinkware through two out-of-court settlements (1) (2), which recently became available on … Continue reading

Prop 65 safe harbor level for BPA finalized

Following the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s proposed regulations for temporary point-of-sale warnings for BPA exposures from canned and bottled foods and beverages, this week OEHHA finalized the Maximum Allowable Dose Level for BPA of 3 micrograms per day from dermal exposure from solid materials. The MADL will go into effect on October … Continue reading

The seal is broken on BPA

After significant industry speculation over what consumer products would be the first targets for Proposition 65 BPA enforcement, the Center for Environmental Health issued the first BPA 60-day notice of violation on June 14, 2016, a little over a month after BPA’s listing anniversary date. The notice is not for canned food; it is not … Continue reading

Update: OEHHA issues revised Prop 65 warning regulations

On May 16, OEHHA issued its fifth iteration of the revised Proposition 65 warning regulations. As these changes largely seek to clarify existing language in the proposed regulations since the prior revision in March, we have a pretty good idea of what the final regulations will look like (although OEHHA does reserve the right to … Continue reading

WARNING: OEHHA announces proposed regulations and a safe harbor level for BPA

After several false starts, Proposition 65 warnings will be required for exposures to bisphenol A (BPA) starting on May 11, 2016. Because of tremendous uncertainty regarding the amount of BPA exposure that will require a warning, as well as the ubiquitous nature of the chemical, on March 17, 2016, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard … Continue reading

Appellate ruling signals potential sea change in Prop 65 enforcement for reproductive toxins

A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, in Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Corporation applied the familiar substantial evidence standard to uphold a trial court judgment in favor of defendants that has enormous implications for Prop 65 enforcement cases. Beech-Nut Trial Court Holding Beech-Nut involved claims that users were exposed … Continue reading

The mysterious world of Prop 65, part 10: Settlements – the good, the bad, the ugly and the process

Virtually all Proposition 65 enforcement actions—whether brought by public prosecutors or private enforcers—resolve by a settlement agreement. In this post, we will discuss the features and mechanics of a settlement. We will focus on private enforcement actions, which make up well over 90 percent of all settlements. The Good Typically, a settlement will result in … Continue reading

The mysterious world of Prop 65, part 3: the warning

Prop 65 plainly directs that any person in the course of doing business (meaning any private company that employs 10 or more persons) must provide a “clear and reasonable warning” before exposing individuals to listed carcinogens and reproductive toxins. When it first adopted regulations implementing the warning requirement in 1989, the Lead Agency (now OEHHA) … Continue reading

Proposition 65: OEHHA’S proposed revisions to warning regulations

In March 2014, OEHHA began the rulemaking process to amend the Clear and Reasonable Warning requirements for California’s Proposition 65. The proposed changes caused a great deal of concern for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers doing business in California. On September 23, 2014, OEHHA circulated a revised draft to some of the stakeholders. While the proposed … Continue reading

CPSC defers controversial proposed rule on consumer product certification

In May 2013, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission proposed to modify the regulations that govern how manufacturers and importers certify that consumer products comply with consumer product safety requirements implemented by CPSC.  Retailers, manufacturers, suppliers, and logistics providers across a variety of industries expressed significant concern over the burdens created by CPSC’s proposal, especially … Continue reading
LexBlog