On October 7, 2019, the California Chamber of Commerce filed suit against the State of California requesting that a federal district court enjoin the State and private enforcers from requiring Proposition 65 warnings on foods that contain acrylamide.
With the news media covering the link between marijuana vaping, deaths, and lung conditions, California’s push to add THC to the Proposition 65 harmful chemicals list could mean financial, legal, and reputational challenges for cannabis businesses.
Over the past 10 years, the number of private Proposition 65 actions against businesses have nearly quadrupled from 604 in 2009 to 2,364 in 2018. Additional Prop 65 regulations on “safe harbor” warnings and online retailers took effect last August.
In recent months, businesses that use disposable product packaging have seen an increase in Proposition 65 Notices of Violation for the commonly used chemical DEHP.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed legislation that would require businesses to disclose the presence of potentially hazardous chemicals, including carcinogens, on the labels of products.
Long-anticipated changes to California’s Proposition 65 warning requirements took effect on August 30, 2018, through amendments and new rules issued by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Following on our previous alert, Proposition 65 amendments that take effect on August 30, 2018 impose new warning requirements on all participants in the product supply chain.
Last October, we alerted you that watchdog groups were filing notices of violation (NOVs) against cannabis dispensaries for alleged violations under Proposition 65.
Proposition 65 requires that businesses with 10 or more employees provide a clear and reasonable warning to California consumers before knowingly and intentionally exposing them to any chemical on a list of more than 900 chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
On August 31, 2016, California took a long-awaited step in publishing new major changes to the Proposition 65 warning regulations; the first of such amendments in more than a decade.
A recent ruling in California US District Court will severely curtail the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort actions based on exposure to chemicals listed under California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65) as chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects.
March 1 is fast approaching. It is the deadline for consumer and commercial product companies to complete an electronic submission to the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) “2013 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey” (Survey).
On January 12, 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a proposed regulation to revise the required warning statement for products containing chemicals listed by the state under Proposition-65 (Prop-65).
Complex Litigation partner Debra Albin-Riley and associate Lynn R. Fiorentino have developed a CLE program on Proposition 65, a broad-reaching consumer protection statute that has the potential to impact businesses that manufacture, sell, or distribute products in California.