INTRODUCTION
California apartment and other residential rental property landlords and their agents (e.g., property managers) with more than 10 employees need to comply with the State’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (“Prop 65”).
Today, many landlords comply with Prop 65 by posting signs in building common areas that meet specific size,
This post was written by Melissa Jones and Tiffanie de la Riva for Stoel Rives’ Alcoholic Beverages Law blog.
The California Court of Appeal recently handed a victory to winemakers, ruling that a specific Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”) warning is not required regarding the presence of inorganic arsenic. The lawsuit, Charles et al. v. Sutter
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) added Bisphenol A (“BPA”) to the Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) list as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity, on May 11, 2015. Prop 65 provides companies with a one year grace period before having to comply with newly listed chemicals, meaning that as of May 11,
The California Office of the Attorney General is seeking to limit certain payment provisions common in Prop. 65 plaintiffs’ settlements with defendants. The proposed rulemaking, published September 25, 2015, would limit the sums payable to the plaintiffs “in lieu of” civil penalties (often referred to as “Additional Settlement Payments”), as well as require ongoing judicial supervision of how plaintiffs actually expend these funds. The proposal would also permit award of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs only in cases where there a “significant” public benefit was obtained. The Attorney General’s office stated that the proposals are intended to bring Prop. 65 practice more in line with the drafters’ intent, as well as increase public accountability of the plaintiffs’ bar.
Continue Reading California Attorney General Targets Prop. 65 Plaintiffs’ Settlement Terms
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) recently released several new pre-regulatory draft proposals regarding Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”). With one possible exception, the pre-regulatory draft proposals double down on the existing Prop 65 burden for companies doing business in California, and would make defending a Prop 65 action even more costly. In an
The California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) recently released its long anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing changes to the warning requirements under Proposition 65’s (“Prop 65”) implementing regulations. In summary, the proposed regulations would establish a new mandatory regulation regarding the responsibility of product manufacturers and others in the distribution chain
Last Friday, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a detailed pre-regulatory proposal that, if adopted, would result in significant changes to the warning requirements for Proposition 65. For additional information, please see our Alert, which provides a summary of the proposed key modifications: http://www.stoel.com/showalert.aspx?Show=11237
This week, Consumer Advocacy Group (CAG), a non-profit organization that files numerous Proposition 65 (Prop 65) lawsuits each year, issued notices of violation alleging that 15 companies violated California law by selling rice containing arsenic (and in some instances, lead) without a Prop 65 warning. The notices targeted a wide a range of companies, from small family-owned rice producers, to regional grocery chains and cooperatives. The same organization, CAG, issued a handful of similar notices to other companies in late 2013, also alleging the presence of arsenic in rice products sold in California without a Prop 65 warning.Continue Reading New Wave of Prop 65 Notices Target Rice Industry
California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) is notable for many reasons, one of which is that the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm is long (over 800 chemicals) and is ever-growing. That being said, the vast majority of Prop 65 lawsuits and alleged violations only involve a handful
Join Stoel Rives attorney Melissa Jones for a webinar to help you avoid getting caught in the Proposition 65 trap. The webinar will cover significant regulatory and enforcement issues associated with Prop 65, including litigation, product testing, recent trends, and practical advice for compliance.
| When: | Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9 – 10:30 a.m. Pacific 11 |
Save the Date for a webinar presented by Melissa Jones designed to help you avoid getting caught in the Proposition 65 trap. The webinar will cover significant regulatory and enforcement issues associated with Prop 65, including litigation, product testing, recent trends, and practical advice for compliance.
Check back soon for more information and registration.