Mid-Year Check-Up: California's Prop 65 Continues To Evolve and Pose Burdens on Businesses
Despite the pandemic, 2020 was a record year for Proposition 65 filings.
June 18, 2021 at 06:07 PM
5 minute read
Despite the pandemic, 2020 was a record year for Prop. 65 filings. There was a 46% increase in Notice of Violation filings from 2019, driven by the usual filers, as well as many new law firms and noticing parties. There have been 1,346 notices filed between Jan. 1, 2021 and June 3, 2021, compared to 1,327 Notices filed in the same time-period in 2020. These Notices consist primarily of phthalates, lead, cadmium, arsenic, BPA and acrylamide. General consumer goods such as bags, purses, supplements, spices, saws, sandpaper, makeup, exercise bands and gloves continue to top the list.
Department of Justice Updates
The Attorney General's office closely monitors Notice of Violation filings, and in 2021 has already sent four publicly posted warning letters to noticing parties and their counsel. The recent letters state that the Notices failed to provide sufficient information to indicate there is a credible basis to conclude that there is merit to each element of the action on which plaintiff will have the burden of proof. The letter asks counsel to withdraw the Notices immediately. The Notices involve lead in dark chocolate, and DEHP and DINP in medical devices.
This is reassuring news for the defense bar to know that the Attorney General is acting as a back-stop to curb abusive and meritless Notices of Violation. However, businesses that receive a Notice must still be vigilant and consult with an attorney to ensure that the Notices of Violation are procedurally accurate.
Proposed Regulatory Changes
As previously expected, we are expecting major changes to the very popular "short form" label that many businesses have been using since August 2018. I anticipate that OEHHA will implement these changes later in 2021, giving businesses a one-year grace period before the new regulations take effect. The primary change is that the short form label will now require identification of a chemical or chemicals in the product, which is not currently required on the short form label. It also limits the size of the product for which the short form label can be used, and eliminates the use of the short form label on the internet or in catalogs.
This change is opposed by many business and industry groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce. Companies rightfully argue that they have just invested significant resources to comply with an overhaul of the Prop. 65 regulations in 2018, and many pivoted to the short form label at that time. It will be onerous and expensive for companies to overhaul their compliance programs once again, particularly on the heels of the pandemic.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMeta’s New Content Guidelines May Result in Increased Defamation Lawsuits Among Users
X Faces Scrutiny as EU Investigates Possible Breach of Content Moderation Standards
3 minute readIs 1st Circuit the New Center for Trump Policy Challenges?
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250