Topic: California Proposition 65

Subscribe to California Proposition 65 RSS feed

California again seeks overhaul of Proposition 65 short-form warning

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) is once again attempting to change the Proposition 65 safe harbor warning regulations. OEHHA has twice before attempted to make changes to the short-form warnings. Each time, industry has pushed back, and both attempts to change the regulations were ultimately unsuccessful. On October 27, OEHHA announced a … Continue reading

Prop 65 proposed short form warning regulation lapses

There has been yet another update in the series of the latest Proposition 65 proposed rulemaking regarding short-form warnings. On January 8, 2021, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) announced that it would amend the regulation relating to short-form Proposition 65 warning. After two sets of revisions to the proposed regulation, OEHHA … Continue reading

California issues second set of revisions to Prop 65 short form warning regulation

In the latest twist in California’s never-ending saga to amend the Proposition 65 “short-form” warning regulation, there’s now been a second proposed change. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has been for some time attempting to limit the use of short form warnings, although encountering significant push back and concerns from the … Continue reading

Ninth Circuit upholds preliminary injunction barring Prop 65 acrylamide lawsuits

A year ago, we wrote about a preliminary injunction that barred new lawsuits seeking to enforce California Proposition 65 cancer warning requirements for acrylamide in food. That injunction was appealed, and on March 17, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals–which is not known as “business friendly”–decided the injunction was proper. This is a major win for … Continue reading

California moves forward with revisions to Prop 65 short-form warning regulation

Eleven months after issuing its original proposal to significantly restrict the use of so-called “short-form” Prop 65 safe harbor warnings, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) published a revised proposed regulation on December 13, 2021. The original proposal, which we summarized here, would have required businesses to make significant revisions to their … Continue reading

California District Court grants preliminary injunction barring Prop 65 acrylamide lawsuits

Prop 65 claims for alleged exposure to acrylamide in food are all too common. In the first three months of 2021 alone there have been 109 acrylamide notices issued. Acrylamide is not a chemical that is intentionally added to food, but rather forms in many types of foods when cooked at high temperatures, including chips, … Continue reading

California moves to restrict the use of short-form Prop 65 warnings

On January 8, 2021, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking significantly limiting the use of the short-form warning as a safe harbor. The proposed regulation makes the following changes: Limiting the use of the short-form warning to products with 5 square inches or less of label … Continue reading

Coffee roasters and retailers defeat Proposition 65 lawsuit

We previously wrote about a regulation issued last year by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) exempting chemicals in coffee from Proposition 65’s warning requirement.  The question then was what effect the new regulation would have on the long-pending industry-wide enforcement action brought by the Council for Education and Research on Toxics … Continue reading

Federal court says Prop 65 warnings for glyphosate violate the First Amendment

On June 22, 2020, Judge William Shubb of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California entered an order prohibiting the State of California from requiring Prop 65 warnings for glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup®. The decision was not based on whether glyphosate had been improperly listed under Prop 65, … Continue reading

Court tosses consumer class action based on alleged Prop 65 violation

As a California appellate court once stated, and many businesses find out to their dismay, Proposition 65’s enforcement procedures make “the instigation of Proposition 65 litigation easy—and almost absurdly easy at the pleading stage and pretrial stages.” Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members, 137 Cal. App. 4th 1185, 1215 (2006). A recent ruling … Continue reading

The mysterious world of Prop 65 reloaded, part 5: the notice

Editor’s Note: Since our original post, there have been two significant changes: In 2017, the California Legislature amended the certificate of merit requirements. The amendments require the Attorney General to notify a private enforcer and the alleged violator if the AG finds no merit to an action.  The amendments also make the basis for the … Continue reading

California modifies Prop 65 warning regulations

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has adopted amendments to its 2016 Proposition 65 warning regulations. These amendments address issues that arose regarding how manufacturers and distributors communicate with retailers and other downstream businesses about the need to provide warnings. The amendments also revise the definition of the “actual knowledge” that creates a duty … Continue reading

The mysterious world of Prop 65 reloaded, part 4: the penalties

Editor’s Note: Not much has changed since our original post regarding civil penalties. Unfortunately, Prop 65 enforcers are still out attempting to collect vast amounts of civil penalties (and attorney’s fees) in private enforcement actions. The obvious concern for many companies facing potential exposure for a Prop 65 violation is what is this going to … Continue reading

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

Editor’s Note: On August 30, 2018, OEHHA’s amendments to the Proposition 65 clear and reasonable warning regulations became effective. The amendments bring two major changes: the first ever allocation of responsibility for warnings, which places the primary responsibility on upstream entities rather than retailers; and significant changes to the “safe harbor” warning regulation, including warning content and methods of … Continue reading

The mysterious world of Prop 65 reloaded, part 2: the list

Editor’s Note: The way that chemicals get added to the list has not changed; however, the list of Prop 65 chemicals has. Here are some recently added chemicals that may be found in consumer products: Aloe Vera (non-decolorized whole leaf extract) Goldenseal root powder Malathion beta-Myrcene Nickel (soluble compounds) Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate … Continue reading

The mysterious world of Prop 65 reloaded, part 1: The law

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to reflect 2018 revisions to the Prop 65 regulations, which for the first time allocated responsibility for compliance within the supply chain. These revisions place the primary responsibility for compliance on manufacturers, distributors, and importers, while limiting the circumstances in which retail sellers are responsible for providing consumer … Continue reading

What now? California finalizes Prop 65 exemption for coffee

What now? California finalizes Prop 65 exemption for coffeeOn June 3, 2019, the California Office of Administrative Law approved a regulation adopted by the California Environmental Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) exempting chemicals in coffee from Prop 65’s warning requirement. The regulation, which has an effective date of October 1, 2019, provides: Exposures to chemicals in coffee, listed on or before March … Continue reading

Six months: how the new Prop 65 regulations have impacted retailer enforcement

It’s been about six months since the new Prop 65 regulations allocated the primary responsibility for providing warnings to suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and importers, while limiting retailers’ responsibility to limited, specified circumstances. Many wondered what impact these new regulations would have on the enforcement of Prop 65 against retailers. Six months in, the answer still … Continue reading

Proposition 65 survival guide

At long last, it’s here—OEHHA’s long-awaited amendments to the Proposition 65 “clear and reasonable warning” regulations become mandatory for products manufactured on and after August 30, 2018. As we are sure you’ve probably heard ad nauseam by now, the revisions make two key changes to the Proposition 65 regulations: (1) for the first time, they … Continue reading

California Proposition 65 amended warning regulations

On August 30, 2016, OEHHA’s long-awaited amendments to the Proposition 65 clear and reasonable warning regulations became final.  The amendments bring two major changes: (1) an allocation of responsibility for providing warnings between retailers and suppliers; and (2) revisions to the safe harbor warning requirements, including warning content and methods of transmission. Allocation of responsibility … Continue reading

California proposes to exempt coffee from Prop 65 warning requirement

On April 12, 2018, we wrote about the decision in Council for Research on Education in Toxics v. Starbucks, in which a California Superior Court judge rejected the evidence presented by coffee roasters and retailers to demonstrate that exposures to acrylamide in coffee were exempt from Proposition 65’s warning requirement. With a motion for permanent … Continue reading

LA judge rules that coffee requires a Proposition 65 warning for acrylamide

On March 28, 2018, Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle issued a proposed statement of decision that would require coffee roasters and retailers to provide Proposition 65 cancer warnings for coffee sold in California. What the case is about Plaintiff Council for Research and Education on Toxics (CERT) asserts that approximately 70 coffee roasters and retailers … Continue reading

Proposition 65 Listed Chemical update

Here is the latest roundup of Proposition 65 chemical issues looming on the horizon for consumer products. Reminder: warnings are required 12 months after the listing effective date, assuming that there is an exposure, and the exposure exceeds the level that requires a warning: Listed effective Oct. 27, 2017: N,N-Dimethylformamide (DMF), CAS No. 68-12-2, used … Continue reading
LexBlog