2019 Was Another Lucrative Year For Prop 65 Bountyhunters

Posted by:

2019 Was Another Lucrative Year For Prop 65 Bountyhunters

As recently featured in the Los Angeles Times, Proposition 65 continues to be big business for a handful of plaintiffs’ lawyers and their select group of clients, but it’s highly questionable how much benefit California residents and consumers receive.

According to settlement data released by the California Office of the Attorney General, in 2019, 909 businesses paid close to $30 million to settle Proposition 65 claims asserted against them. The average settlement payment was nearly $33,000. Of this staggering sum, almost $24 million, or 80%, went directly into the pockets of plaintiffs’ lawyers. In sharp contrast, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which implements Proposition 65, received only about 11% of the settlement payments, or $3.3 million. The plaintiffs – so-called “private enforcers” – took a share of more than $2.7 million.

Proposition 65, otherwise known as California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, is a “right to know” law. Prop 65 requires businesses to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings for exposures to any one of the more than 900 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list that are known to cause cancer, reproductive harm or birth defects, before they can be sold in California. The obligation to warn can fall on all parties in the supply chain – manufacturers, producers, packagers, importers, suppliers, distributors and retailers. Businesses that fail to provide such warnings risk receiving a written “Notice of Violation”, a precursor to a Proposition 65 enforcement lawsuit.

Violations of Proposition 65 can cost businesses tens of thousands of dollars in civil penalties, the noticing party’s attorneys’ fees, and defense costs. The deck is stacked against the business alleged to be in violation: In general, all the noticing party has to show is an exposure to a listed chemical. The burden of proof then shifts to the business to show that no actionable exposure has occurred, which is a difficult burden to meet under the law and can require costly expert witnesses. Accordingly, most Proposition 65 cases settle either out-of-court in a private settlement agreement, or in court through a court-approved consent judgment.

One chemical, di(2-ethylhexyl phthalate) or DEHP, accounted for more than half of the 2019 settlements. DEHP, a phthalate, is on the Proposition 65 list as a chemical known to cause cancer and reproductive harm. DEHP is commonly used in plastics to make them flexible. According to OEHHA, DEHP can be found in various types of plastic consumer products, including some shower curtains, furniture and automobile upholstery, garden hoses, floor tiles, coverings on wires and cables, rainwear shoes, lunchboxes, binders, backpacks, plastic food packaging materials, and medical devices and equipment. In 2019, businesses settled claims over DEHP exposure from such products as cosmetic cases, goggles, gloves, erasers, hangers and bedding storage cases. The phthalate diisonoyl phthalate (DINP) and lead are two other chemicals that were the frequent subjects of 2019 settlements.

Proposition 65 claims in 2019 were again dominated by a small group of plaintiffs’ lawyers whose practices consist of sending out Notices of Violation and extracting settlements from businesses.

The private enforcers that have sent Notices of Violation this year include:

• APS&EE (represented by Law Offices of Lucas T. Novak)
• Anthony Ferreiro (represented by Brodsky & Smith, LLC)
• As You Sow (represented by Danielle Fugere and Chelsea Linsley of As You Sow)
• Audrey Donaldson (represented by Voorhees & Bailey, LLP)
• Berj Parseghian (represented by KJT Law Group PLC)
• Brad Van Patten (represented by Law Offices of George Rikos)
• CA Citizen Protection Group, LLC (represented by Khansari Law Corporation and Blackstone Law)
• Center for Environmental Health (represented by Lexington Law Group)
• Clean Label Project (represented by Davitt, Lalley, Dey & McHale, PC)
• Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. (represented by Yeroulshalmi & Yeroulshalmi)
• Consumer Protection Group, LLC (represented by Blackstone Law)
• Dennis Johnson (represented by Voorhees & Bailey, LLP)
• Ecological Alliance, LLC (represented by Custodio & Dubey LLP)
• Ecological Rights Foundation (represented by Law Offices of Brian Gaffney)
• Ema Bell (represented by Brodsky & Smith, LLC)
• Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. (represented by Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP and Glick Law Group)
• Environmental Research Center, Inc. (represented by Michael Freund & Associates, Law Office of Richard M. Franco and Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group)
• EnviroProtect, LLC (represented by Kawahito Law Group APC)
• Erika McCartney (represented by Environmental Law Foundation)
• Evelyn Wimberley (represented by Law Offices of Stephen Ure, PC)
• Gabriel Espinoza (or Gabriel Espinosa) (represented by Brodsky & Smith, LLC)
• Keep America Safe and Beautiful (represented by Custodio & Dubey LLP and Sy & Smith, PC)
• Key Sciences, LLC (represented by Kyle Wallace and Davitt, Lalley, Dey & McHale)
• Kim Embry (represented by Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP and Glick Law Group)
• Kimberly Ann Harrison (represented by Law Office of Rick Morin, PC)
• Laurence Vinocur (represented by The Chanler Group)
• Mary Elizabeth Romero (represented by Agency D&L)
• Maureen Parker (represented by Law Offices of Stephen Ure, PC)
• My Nguyen (represented by Seven Hills LLP)
• Paul Wozniak (represented by The Chanler Group)
• Precila Balabbo (represented by Brodsky & Smith, LLC)
• Public Health and Safety Advocates, LLC (represented by Law Offices of Danialpour & Associates)
• Ryan Acton (represented by O’Neil Dennis)
• Sara Hammond (represented by Joseph D. Agliozzo, Law Corporation)
• Shefa LMV, Inc. (represented by Law Office of Daniel N. Greenbaum)
• Susan Davia (represented by Sheffer Law Firm)
• Tamar Kaloustian (represented by KJT Law Group PLC)
• The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc. (represented by Khansari Law Corporation)
• Zachary Stein (represented by KJC Law Group APC)

Businesses should be aware of and ensure compliance with Proposition 65’s requirements if their products are sold in California. In the event a Notice of Violation is received, businesses should contact qualified legal counsel. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are highly experienced in defending businesses against Proposition 65 claims as well as counseling businesses on compliance, in order to minimize the risk of enforcement actions.

2019 Prop 65 By the Numbers:

• 1,000: Notices of Violation Served
• 909: Number of Settlements/Consent Judgments
• $29.7 Million: Paid by Businesses to Resolve Claims
• $23.7 Million: Attorneys’ Fees & Costs Collected by Noticing Parties’ Attorneys
• $2.7 Million: Payments Collected by Noticing Parties
• $3.3 Million: Payments to OEHHA
• $32,706: Average Settlement/Judgment Amount

The number of enforcement actions in 2019 was not a fluke. Similar numbers have been accumulated in prior years. Just in the first few months of 2020, a considerable number of new enforcement actions have been pursued. 2020 Prop 65 enforcement actions will be reviewed in an upcoming blog post.

27
JUL
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New SDS Multi-Language Website Posting Required for Some Disinfectants and Cosmetics

Posted by:

New SDS Multi-Language Website Posting Required for Some Disinfectants and Cosmetics

To protect workers in the professional salon industry from risks of frequent exposure to what may be considered hazardous chemicals, starting July 1, 2020, California Assembly Bill No. 647 (“AB 647”) will require product manufacturers or importers of commercial products including a “hazardous substance” that constitutes a “cosmetic” or a “disinfectant” to post on their websites Safety Data Sheets (“SDS”) translated into multiple languages considered to be commonly used in the beauty industry.

AB 647 enacts California Labor Code Section 6390.2, which applies to businesses that manufacture or import a “hazardous substance or mixture of substances” that constitutes a cosmetic or is used as a disinfectant, and that are required under existing law to create a SDS for the product. The new law requires businesses to not only post their products’ SDS in English on their business website, but also translate and post the SDS in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean – languages considered common to the beauty care industry. These SDS must be posted by the product’s brand name or other commonly known name, in a manner generally accessible to the public. If a separate SDS exists based on color or tint, such as for hair dyes used in salons, each separate SDS must also be translated and posted.

“Cosmetic” means any article, or its components, intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to, the human body, or any part of the human body, for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance. Soap is not considered a cosmetic. (California Health and Safety Code § 109900)

Disinfectants are defined under the Health & Safety Code sections applicable to Barbering and Cosmetology professions as any product registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) that has demonstrated bactericidal, fungicidal and virucidal activity, in liquid form to disinfect non-electrical tools and spray or wipe form to disinfect electrical tools and shears. (16 CCR § 977) A “hazardous substance” for purposes of AB 647 means any chemical found on the Director’s List of Hazardous Substances that exceed certain specified limits.

AB 647 does not impose any new legal requirements for manufacturers and importers of cosmetics and disinfectants to create SDS where SDS were not previously required. Rather, AB 647 only requires manufacturers and importers of such products that are already required to develop or maintain SDS to post and maintain those SDS in the required languages on their websites.

AB 647 amended the Labor Code with the intent of protecting “workers in the professional salon industry from the risks of being exposed to harsh chemicals on a daily basis,” said the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Ash Kalra.
The new law does not apply to cosmetics and disinfectants that are consumer products. The Labor Code generally exempts hazardous substances contained in products intended for personal consumption by employees in the workplace, or consumer products packaged for distribution to, and use by, the general public. However, professional use products (with hazardous ingredients), would need to comply because they are used by employees in the workplace.

“Disinfectants” as used in the new law are defined as any product registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) that has demonstrated bactericidal, fungicidal and virucidal activity, in liquid form to disinfect non-electrical tools and spray or wipe form to disinfect electrical tools and shears. Although this language is directed toward disinfectants used on tools, it might be construed to apply when disinfectants can be used on other surfaces.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel’s team of attorneys provides counseling on regulatory compliance matters, and can assist businesses in determining whether they need to comply with AB 647 and other laws and regulations affecting personal care products.

27
JUN
0

Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FTC Warns Manufacturers About CBD Claims

Posted by:

FTC Warns Manufacturers About CBD Claims

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced today that it had sent warning letters to three companies over their advertising of products containing cannabidiol or CBD, one of the many active compounds of the cannabis plant. The letters reinforce the FTC’s position that advertisers may not make health-related representations for CBD products without satisfying FTC substantiation standards.

According to the FTC’s press release, the companies – which have not been identified publicly – advertised oils, tinctures, capsules, “gummies” and creams containing CBD as treating or curing serious diseases and health conditions. Disease claims require scientific proof, making it illegal for companies to advertise that a product can prevent, treat or cure human disease without competent and reliable scientific evidence to support such claims.

The FTC took issue with the following:
• A claim that CBD “works like magic” to relieve “even the most agonizing pain” better than prescription opioid painkillers
• A claim that the company has participated in “thousands of hours of research” with Harvard researchers, to bolster its claims that CBD has been “clinically proven” to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), fibromyalgia, cigarette addiction, and colitis
• A claim that CBD products are proven to treat autism, anorexia, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), stroke, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, traumatic brain injuries, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, MS, fibromyalgia, cancer, and AIDS
• A claim that CBD is a “miracle pain remedy” for both acute and chronic pain, including pain from cancer treatment and arthritis
• A claim that CBD gummies are highly effective at treating “the root cause of most major degenerative diseases, including arthritis, heart disease, fibromyalgia, cancer, asthma, and a wide spectrum of autoimmune disorders”
• A claim that CBD cream relieves arthritis pain
• A claim that CBD oil may effectively treat depression, PTSD, epilepsy, heart disease, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and asthma

According to the FTC, the letters urge the recipient companies to review all claims made for their products, including consumer testimonials, to ensure they are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence, and also include a warning that selling CBD products without such substantiation could violate the FTC Act and may result in legal action that could result in an injunction and an order to return money to consumers.

The recent warning letters follow similar joint warning letters issued by the FTC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in March 2019 to three sellers of CBD supplements – Nutra Pure LLC, PotNetwork Holdings, Inc., and Advanced Spine and Pain LLC d/b/a Relievus. The letters alleged that the companies made false or unsubstantiated health claims in violation of the FTC Act as well as sold unapproved drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

As the market for CBD goods – including cosmetics and supplements – continues to explode, companies vying for market position must be aware of action taken by the FTC and FDA and stay away from making health or drug claims that could subject them to enforcement by these agencies. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay current on the latest developments to help those how manufacture, distribute and sell products containing CBD avoid regulatory trouble.

10
SEP
0

Advertising and Labeling, Beauty Industry, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Regulatory Compliance, Sales

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Amazon and Online Retailers Draw Proposition 65 Notices of Violation

Posted by:

Amazon and Online Retailers Draw Proposition 65 Notices of Violation

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney John Conkle was recently interviewed by chemical industry publication Chemical Watch in an article about the continued robust private enforcement of Proposition 65 against large retailers such as Amazon, Target, Walmart, CVS and Costco. John, a leading Prop 65 defense attorney who has counseled and defended companies throughout the supply chain, provided his expert insight in the article, which looked at the astronomical number of notices of violation being served on retailers by private enforcers.

In general, Proposition 65 enforcement has steadily risen over the years, reaching its peak in 2018 with 827 settlements and judgments totaling a record $35 million.

However, under the Proposition 65 regulations as amended last August, retailers are now legally responsible for compliance only under certain prescribed circumstances. In addition to having to provide Internet warnings for products sold online, a retailer is responsible for providing a warning if:
• the retailer is selling the product under its brand or trademark;
• the retailer knowingly introduced a listed chemical into the product or knowingly caused a listed chemical to be created in the product;
• the retailer covered, obscured or altered a warning label that was affixed to the product;
• the retailer received a notice and warning materials for the exposure but sold the product without posting or displaying the warning; or
• the retailer has actual knowledge of the potential exposure requiring the warning and there is no upstream entity that can be held liable for the violation. Actual knowledge means specific knowledge of the exposure received from any reliable source. If the source of this knowledge is a Prop 65 notice of violation, the retail seller is deemed to have actual knowledge five business days after receipt.

Despite the new regulations, retailers are continuing to be served with notices of violation. For example, while Amazon has received 1,027 notices of violation since the California Attorney General’s Office began keeping track in 2000, most of those notices were served in recent years: 255 in 2016, 404 in 2017, 180 in 2018 and 57 so far this year. Private enforcers often include retailers in their notices to apply settlement pressure on manufacturers, distributors and other entities upstream in the supply chain, who are often required to enter into indemnity agreements with their retailers. Retailers should continue to be vigilant about having adequate indemnity agreements in place, ensuring that the products they sell have been tested for compliance with Proposition 65 and if warnings are required, to provide the appropriate warnings.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys routinely assist clients in ensuring compliance with Proposition 65 and other regulations, and defend businesses against Proposition 65 when a notice of violation is received.

9
AUG
0

Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Technology

, , , , ,

California Brews Up Broader Definition of Beer

Posted by:

California Brews Up Broader Definition of Beer

The definition of “beer” got a little broader in California, thanks to the passage of Assembly Bill 205 (AB 205), which was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 9, 2019.

AB 205, introduced by Assemblymember Tom Daly (D-Anaheim), expands the definition of “beer” under California’s Alcohol Beverage Control Act (California Business & Professions Code Section 23006) by allowing beer to be produced using honey, fruit, fruit juice, fruit concentrate, herbs, spices and other food materials as adjuncts in fermentation.

Under the prior law, beer was strictly defined as a grain-derived beverage – “any alcoholic beverage obtained by the fermentation of any infusion or decoction of barley, malt, hops or any other similar product, or any combination thereof in water.” Accordingly, the prior definition of “beer” required a wine license in order to use fruit in the fermentation process.

However, California’s old definition of “beer” was out of step with federal regulations adopted in 2006 by the Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, which allow the use of honey, fruit, fruit juice, fruit concentrate, herbs, spices and other food materials as adjuncts in fermenting beer. And while AB 205 is largely seen as bringing California’s definition in line with federal regulations, Assemblymember Daly’s office explained that AB 205 “modifies the definition of beer in a way that will allow California breweries to expand their market, satisfying the consumer’s desire for more varied and unique styles of beer.”

The new definition is likely to have swift impact. California has more craft breweries than any other state, with more than 980 craft breweries as of January 2019, per the California Craft Brewers Association trade association. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys counsel clients in the craft brewery industry.

31
JUL
0

Alcoholic Beverages, California Trade Regulations, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition

, , , ,

Will 2019 be the Year of Federal Cosmetics Regulation?

Posted by:

Will 2019 be the Year of Federal Cosmetics Regulation?

2019 is starting to look like the year Congress may make good on its efforts to pass federal cosmetics reform legislation, with legislation in the works in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives that would increase federal regulatory oversight for cosmetics. In addition, Senate and House committees have been active in demanding more information and action from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure cosmetics safety.

Feinstein/Collins Personal Care Products Safety Act Bill

As they have in previous sessions of Congress, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) re-introduced the “Personal Care Products Safety Act” (S. 726) in March, a bill that would strengthen the FDA’s efforts to regulate ingredients in personal care products.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA) by:

  • • Requiring annual registration of cosmetic facilities with the FDA and impose tiered registration fees;
  • • Requiring cosmetic ingredient statements for all cosmetics, including fragrances, flavors and colors, as well as a range of possible amounts of each ingredient;
  • • Providing the FDA the authority to suspend registration of a facility (and any import, export or distribution of cosmetics from the facility) or a cosmetic ingredient statement (and all cosmetics that are the subject of the statement) if there is a reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans;
  • • Directing the FDA to review ingredients and non-functional constituents, including coal tar chemicals) for safety at a rate of at least five ingredients per year;
  • • Directing the FDA to issue regulations to establish Good Manufacturing Practices for cosmetics;
  • • Requiring timely reporting of serious adverse events and annual reporting of adverse events;
  • • Allowing the FDA wide authority to inspect records;
  • • Providing mandatory recall authority to the FDA;
  • • Requiring labeling of cosmetics that are not appropriate for use in the entire population, including warnings that vulnerable populations, such as children or pregnant women, should limit or avoid using the product;
  • • Requiring ingredients, warnings and statements on professional products;
  • • Requiring complete label information to be placed online for online sales of cosmetics; and
  • • Requiring a telephone number or electronic contact information on the label.

In the first year, the FDA would evaluate the safety and appropriate use of the following five chemicals, which could be banned from cosmetics or limited in their allowed use:

• Diazolidinyl urea, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, bubble bath and lotion.
• Diethyl phthalate, which is used as a binding agent in some fragrances and cosmetics.
• Methylene glycol/formaldehyde, which is used in hair treatments.
Propyl paraben, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, conditioner and lotion.
• Quaternium-15, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, shaving cream, skin creams and cleansers.

Pallone/Shimkus Discussion Draft

Meanwhile, House Energy & Commerce (E&C) Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) in March released a bipartisan discussion draft of legislation that is very similar to the Personal Care Products Safety Act, which is expected to be introduced in the House soon.

Action by Congressional Committees

Congressional committees have also been flexing their investigative and oversight muscles by demanding additional information from and calling for more action by the FDA, separately from the status of any reform legislation.

After the FDA announced in March that its testing (almost two years after the fact) confirmed the presence of asbestos in cosmetics, including eye shadows, compact powders and contour palettes, sold in 2017 at children and teen stores Claire’s and Justice stores, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, called for further investigation by the FDA into whether cosmetic products that contain talc “may be contaminated with asbestos.”  Sen. Murray is also urging the FDA to conduct additional testing to ensure the safety of cosmetic products containing talc, and in particular cosmetics that are marketed to children and teenagers.  Separately, Sen. Murray demanded that Claire’s provide more information about the possible sources of asbestos contamination and the process and procedures Claire’s takes to assess the safety of its products before they reach customers.

There have been further regulatory and legislative developments on these subjects in June 2019. Additional cosmetics, including a JoJo Siwa makeup set sold by Claire’s, were found to be contaminated with asbestos and were recalled in June 2019. Rep. Pallone then sent a letter to the FDA requesting updated information about the agency’s inspections of imported cosmetic products. Specifically, Rep. Pallone sought FDA foreign inspections data from Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-2019, including the number and kinds of personal care products imported each year, the number of imported products subjected to inspections each year, and the number of contaminated products intercepted each year. According to Rep. Pallone, the FDA has not conducted any foreign cosmetic inspections in FY 2019 and intends to conduct no foreign cosmetic inspections in FY 2020.

This was not the first such request to the FDA, as Rep. Pallone previously sent a letter to the FDA requesting similar information in 2016. In response, the FDA stated that in FY 2016, less than one percent of cosmetic products that arrived in U.S. ports were physically examined by FDA inspectors; of those inspected, inspectors reported adverse findings such as illegal color additives and microbial contamination in 15 percent of the imports.

The push toward federal cosmetics reform has been many years in the making, and now gathers industry support from such heavyweights as The Estee Lauder Companies, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal and Procter & Gamble.  While the industry by and large appears to agree that updates are needed to the current regulatory system and would increase consumer confidence, there are concerns about the extent of the reform and the scope and breadth of the power to be vested in the FDA.  Key stakeholders are involved in the process and engaging with the House, Senate and FDA. 

While it remains to be seen whether 2019 will be the year of significant cosmetic legislation reform, one thing is certain – increased regulation for the personal care products industry is inevitable, and the question is just one of how much regulation and the extent to which the FDA will preempt state and local regulations.

Cosmetics manufacturers should take heed as they plan their product formulations, manufacturing and labeling of existing and planned product lines, whether made in the U.S. or abroad. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stand ready to help clients plan their responses to current and developing regulatory changes affecting the beauty industry.

18
JUL
0

Advertising and Labeling, Beauty Industry, Personal Care Products, Regulatory Compliance

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

California’s SB 574 and AB 495 Would Expand Regulation of Cosmetics Labeling and Ingredients

Posted by:

California’s SB 574 and AB 495 Would Expand Regulation of Cosmetics Labeling and Ingredients

California has always led the way when it comes to regulating cosmetic products, and bills recently introduced by Senator Connie Leyva (Senate Bill No. 574 or SB 574) and Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi and Buffy Wicks (Assembly Bill No. 495 or AB 495) is in keeping with California’s reputation as a trailblazer in the cosmetics regulatory space.

SB 574, the “Toxic Fragrance Chemicals Right to Know Act of 2019”

SB 574, the “Toxic Fragrance Chemicals Right to Know Act of 2019,” was introduced last month. It would require cosmetic manufacturers, starting July 1, 2020, to disclose whether any of their cosmetic products contains a toxic fragrance or flavor ingredient.

Fragrance or flavor ingredients that appear on any one of 27 “designated lists” would be subject to public disclosure. The designated lists include chemicals listed as known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity pursuant to California’s Proposition 65; chemicals classified by the European Union as carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive toxins; chemicals included in the European Union Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern; and Group 1, 2A or 2B carcinogens identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) among many others.

Existing law – the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005 (“Safe Cosmetics Act”) – requires cosmetic manufacturers to disclose to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Safe Cosmetics Program whether any of their cosmetic products contain chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The Safe Cosmetics Act’s list of reportable ingredients is compiled from a more far limited set of five designated lists. This self-reported information, in turn, is publicly available through the CDPH’s Safe Cosmetics Database.

While the Safe Cosmetics Act does not exempt fragrances and flavorings from being reported, the reportable chemicals in those cases are often identified simply as “trade secrets.” The proposed legislation would require the disclosure of the identities of the reportable chemicals or ingredients, but for trade secret purposes, would not require the weight or amount of a fragrance or flavor ingredient to be disclosed or any disclosure of how the fragrance or flavor is formulated. In addition, a manufacturer would not have to disclose any fragrance or flavor ingredients that are not found on any of the 27 designated lists. It is important to note that SB 574 as proposed would not ban or otherwise regulate the use of any fragrance or flavor ingredients.

AB 495, the “Toxic Free Cosmetics Act”

AB 495, also introduced in February 2019, would amend both California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law and the Safe Cosmetics Act.

California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, holding or offer for sale of adulterated cosmetics. AB 495 would greatly expand the definition of an “adulterated cosmetic” to include cosmetics that contain specific ingredients. Any cosmetic that contains lead or asbestos or any of the following 13 intentionally added ingredients – without regard to the amount or exposure levels – would be banned from sale in California:

  • Butylparaben
  • Carbon black
  • Dibutyl phthalate
  • Diethylhexyl phthalate
  • Formaldehyde
  • Formaldehyde releasers
  • Isobutylparaben
  • Isopropylparaben
  • Mercury and related compounds
  • Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
  • Propylparaben
  • Toluene
  • Triclosan

The bill would also amend the Safe Cosmetics Act by requiring referrals to be made to the Department of Justice for any sale of adulterated cosmetics, as well as any violation of the Safe Cosmetics Act.

If passed, the legislation would have the effect of requiring companies doing business anywhere in the United States to reformulate their cosmetics to remove these ingredients, effectively creating a nationwide ingredient ban. The bill comes as the FDA confirmed that cosmetic products sold in 2017 by Claire’s and Justice tested positive for asbestos.

It has become clear that California’s leadership position on cosmetic regulation has effectively driven changes in cosmetic products and labeling throughout the United States. Conkle, Kremer & Engel will continue to follow and update these important developments affecting the cosmetics industry.

Update on AB 495 as of April 9, 2019

Efforts to pass AB 495 have temporarily stalled.  On April 9, 2019, the Assembly’s Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee postponed a scheduled vote to move the bill to the Assembly Health Committee due to lack of support.  The bill is not expected to be brought back again until next year. It is anticipated that the bill will be in a revised form when reintroduced.  Conkle, Kremer & Engel will continue to monitor the developments of AB 495.

30
MAR
0

Advertising and Labeling, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Regulatory Compliance, Safe Cosmetics Act

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2018 Proposition 65 Trends Show Increasing Risk to Business

Posted by:

2018 Proposition 65 Trends Show Increasing Risk to Business

2018 turned out to be the most lucrative year ever for Proposition 65 attorneys and their clients, according to settlement data collected by the California Office of Attorney General (OAG). The famous “right-to-know” law has been on the books for more than 30 years, and requires businesses to provide warnings for exposures to any one of the more than 900 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list that are known to cause cancer, reproductive harm or birth defects – or face hefty civil penalty and attorneys’ fees demands from the OAG, a district attorney or, far more commonly, private enforcers who initiate their claims by sending Notices of Violation.

Reviewing the recent trends, the indications are that the private enforcer claimants are becoming more efficient at extracting as much as possible from the unfortunate businesses who receive Notices of Violation. Even though California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is supposed to benefit from Proposition 65 recoveries, the chart below shows graphically that the vast majority of the money obtained by the claimants stays with the claimants – and most of it stays with the claimants’ attorneys. In 2018, less than 12% of the money obtained by private enforcers went to OEHHA, and more than 79% went to the claimants’ attorneys.

2014-2018 CKE Prop 65 Settlement Chart

The claimants’ increasing efficiency is shown clearly by the fact that, even though the number of Notices of Violation sent to businesses dropped by approximately 13% (2,710 in 2017 and just 2,364 in 2018), the number of settlements and judgments increased from 693 in 2017 to 834 in 2018. The average settlement shot up by 13%, from $38,395 in 2017 to $44,097 in 2018. This was buoyed in large part by a huge increase in the attorneys’ fees and costs collected by plaintiffs’ attorneys. In 2017, plaintiffs’ attorneys took in $20.2 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. In 2018, plaintiffs’ attorneys recovered $29.1 million in attorneys’ fees and costs.

The small circle of private enforcers making these claims remains an exclusive club. The claimants active in 2018 included: Alicia Chin; Amy Chamberlin; Anthony E. Held, Ph.D., P.E.; Anthony Ferreiro; APS&EE, LLC; As You Sow; CA Citizen Protection Group, LLC; Center for Advanced Public Awareness, Inc.; Center for Environmental Health; Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc.; Dennis Johnson; Donny Macias; Ecological Alliance, LLC; Ecological Rights Foundation; Ema Bell; Environmental Law Foundation; Environmental Research Center, Inc.; EnviroProtect, LLC; Erika McCartney; Evelyn Wimberley; Gabriel Espinosa; Hector Velarde; John Moore; Estate of Karen Charlene Calacin; Kim Embry; Kingpun Cheng; Laurence Vinocur; Maureen Parker; Michael DiPirro; Paul Wozniak; Peter Englander; Precila Balabbo; Russell Brimer; Safe Products for Californians, LLC; Sara Hammond; Shefa LMV Inc.; Susan Davia; The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc.; and Whitney R. Leeman, Ph.D.

Questions still remain as to the effects on the Proposition 65 industry of the OAG’s amended settlement guidelines that went into effect October 1, 2016, and the new clear and reasonable warning requirements that went into effect August 30, 2018. We posited some theories in our previous blog post on the issue, but it’s too early to tell the collective effects of these changes on the net Proposition 65 costs for businesses. One thing is for certain: The risks to businesses are increasing as Proposition 65 claimants are demanding more money than ever to resolve their claims. Absent any meaningful Proposition 65 reform, that trend will only continue. Unfortunately, Proposition 65 is notoriously difficult to reform because it requires a two-thirds majority approval of each house in the Legislature and any amendment must further the purposes of Proposition 65.

The best approach for businesses is to be proactive to try to meet the Proposition 65 challenges before they become very costly burdens. Aside from carefully reviewing your compliance, the most important factor in reducing costs of resolution is to act promptly when you receive a Notice of Violation to contact qualified counsel experienced in Proposition 65 issues. Conkle, Kremer & Engel keeps up to date on developments in Proposition 65 and provides expert guidance to clients to ensure compliance with Proposition 65 and other regulations.

2018 by the Numbers

  • 2,364: Notices of Violation Served
  • 834: Number of Settlements/Consent Judgments
  • 39: Number of Active Prop 65 Plaintiffs
  • $36.7 Million: Paid by Businesses to Resolve Claims
  • $29.1 Million: Attorneys’ Fees & Costs Collected by Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
  • $3.3 Million: Payments Collected by Plaintiffs
  • $4.3 Million: Payments to State Agency
  • $44,097: Average Settlement/Judgment Amount

2017 by the Numbers

  • 2,710: Notices of Violation Served
  • 693: Number of Settlements/Consent Judgments
  • 38: Number of Active Prop 65 Plaintiffs
  • $26.6 Million: Paid by Businesses to Resolve Claims
  • $20.2 Million: Attorneys’ Fees & Costs Collected by Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
  • $2.7 Million: Payments Collected by Plaintiffs
  • $3.7 Million: Payments to State Agency
  • $38,395: Average Settlement/Judgment Amount

This blog post was coauthored by Desiree Ho.

27
MAR
0

Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Prop 65: PILPs and ASPs and Fees — Oh My!

Posted by:

Prop 65: PILPs and ASPs and Fees — Oh My!

We previously blogged about Proposition 65 trends based on data about settlements and judgments collected and made public by the California Attorney General’s Office. One trend we noted was the downward shift in civil penalty offsets known as “payments in lieu of penalties” (PILPs) or “additional settlement payments” (ASPs), due to recent amendments to the Proposition 65 regulations to rein in such payments. We’ll refer to these offsets collectively as ASPs and look at how the amendments have affected the Proposition 65 “industry”.

By way of background, Proposition 65 generally allows claimants (termed private enforcers) to keep 25% of the civil penalties as well as recover their attorneys’ fees and costs in enforcement actions. The state’s regulating agency, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) retains the other 75% of the civil penalties. While Proposition 65 authorizes penalties of up to $2,500 “per day for each violation,” the reality is that civil penalties make up a very small portion of an overall settlement or judgment: The vast majority of the payment is earmarked as attorneys’ fees and costs paid to the claimant’s lawyers.

In the past, Proposition 65 private enforcers have often demanded additional payments that were treated as offsets to civil penalties. In other words, whatever the appropriate amount of civil penalties, they would carve out a portion of it as ASPs, because the claimants could keep the ASP portion entirely or direct it to a related entity – in addition to retaining their 25% share of the civil penalties. OEHHA does not receive any part of an ASP.

The practice became concerning enough that the Attorney General’s Office amended the regulations, effective October 1, 2016, to impose additional requirements for ASPs. According to the Final Statement of Reasons for the rulemaking, the amendments were intended, among other things, to “ensure that [OEHHA] receives the civil penalty funds specified in Proposition 65, so that it has adequate resources for Proposition 65 implementation activities” and to “limit the ability of private plaintiffs to divert the statutorily mandated penalty to themselves or to third parties, in the form of [ASPs].”

The regulations as amended also reflect the Attorney General’s position that ASPs should not be included in any settlement that is not subject to judicial approval and ongoing judicial oversight. The effect has been that, since 2017, only one private settlement agreement has included ASPs. Several others were reported in 2017 and 2019, but a review of the settlement agreements showed that the private enforcer in those cases erroneously reported its 25% portion of the civil penalties as ASPs.

While this can be seen as a bright spot, it may have the unintended consequence of lowering the incentive for certain private enforcers to settle early and privately, increasing costs to businesses who receive a Proposition 65 “notice of violation” – the official precursor to legal action. Indeed, since the amendments, we have continued to see a high number of court judgments contain ASP provisions, since those are still allowed under the amended regulations but subject to additional scrutiny by the Attorney General. In 2017, 90 of the 345 court judgments called for payment of ASPs (totaling $1,421,660) and in 2018, 109 of the 366 court judgments included ASPs (totaling $1,915,083). While not all plaintiffs are as aggressive about collecting ASPs, some NGO plaintiffs (such as As You Sow, Center for Advanced Public Awareness, Center for Environmental Health, Consumer Advocacy Group, Ecological Rights Foundation and Environmental Research Center) still show a strong preference for ASPs in resolving their claims. It is possible that OEHHA’s move to restrict ASPs results in more lawsuits and fewer pre-litigation settlements, but may not ultimately reduce ASPs as much as anticipated.

More problematically, the amendments seem to have had the unintended effect of driving up the civil penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. The amended regulations provide that ASPs should not exceed the 75% share of the civil penalty paid to OEHHA. Previously, ASPs in both private settlements and judgments often exceeded the total civil penalties. The regulations now effectively place a cap on the amount of ASPs: ASPs that exceed 75% of the civil penalties may cause the Attorney General to file an opposition. So to maximize their own recovery private enforcers are now settling for what seems to be high civil penalties and ASPs that are a hair below 75% of that amount. Legally, that is a very doubtful practice – since ASPs are an offset to civil penalties, a defendant should pay the same total amount based on statutory factors, regardless of whether any part of the payment is earmarked as an ASP or if all of it is treated as a civil penalty.

One of the most stunning observations of the trends in Proposition 65 recoveries is that the attorneys’ fee portion of Proposition 65 settlements has increased every year. As we will discuss further in a later blog post, in 2018 the total amount of attorneys’ fees and costs collected by Proposition 65 plaintiffs shattered all records. Attorneys’ fees made up 79% of all Proposition 65 recoveries in 2018 – up from 76% in 2017. The claimants’ attorneys collected an astonishing $29,117,784 – an increase of nearly $9 million over 2017. It is not a big leap to infer that there is a connection between this and the changed regulations reducing claimants’ ability to rely on ASPs – claimants may be increasing the attorneys’ fees portion of their recovery to make up for perceived “losses” in ASPs.

What do the amended regulations and the settlement trends mean for businesses defending against Proposition 65 claims? For one, settling early and privately in an out-of-court settlement is a recommended strategy. ASPs should not be part of such early agreements. This means anyone receiving a notice of violation should act promptly to obtain qualified legal counsel, because private enforcers can sue in court after giving 60 days’ notice. Certain defense strategies can be utilized to try to force an out-of-court settlement for a non-cooperating private enforcer, or at least make a court judgment less appealing to the claimant. Businesses should also take steps to minimize civil penalties and thereby ASPs by taking immediate corrective action as well as ensure that their legal counsel put together a defense that supports a minimal civil penalty recovery under the law.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are experienced at helping clients defend against Proposition 65 claims, resolving them cost-effectively and efficiently, as well as implementing proactive strategies to avoid Proposition 65 and other regulatory issues.

11
MAR
0

Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

California’s Cleaning Product Right to Know Act Requires Ingredient Disclosure

Posted by:

California’s Cleaning Product Right to Know Act Requires Ingredient Disclosure

California became the first state in the nation to have a cleaning products disclosure law, after Governor Brown signed the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017 (S.B. 258 (Lara)) into law in late 2017.

The Cleaning Product Right to Know Act requires manufacturers of certain cleaning products sold in California to disclose on the product label and on the product’s Internet web site certain information related to known hazardous chemicals contained in the product.  Manufacturers will have until January 1, 2020 to comply with the online disclosure requirements, and until January 1, 2021 to comply with the product label disclosure requirements.  However, any intentionally added ingredient that is regulated by California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (commonly known as Proposition 65) will not have to be listed until January 1, 2023.

The new law applies to so-called “designated products”, which are defined as a finished product that is an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic or institutional cleaning purposes.  It does not apply to foods, drugs and cosmetics, trial samples, or industrial products specifically manufactured for certain industrial manufacturing processes.

The product label will be required to disclose each intentionally added ingredient contained in the product that is included on any of 22 specified designated chemical lists – including chemicals listed pursuant to Proposition 65.  Alternatively, manufacturers may list all intentionally added ingredients contained in the product unless it is confidential business information.  The Act also requires the disclosure of fragrance allergens greater than 0.01 percent (100 ppm).  Additional requirements include the manufacturer’s toll-free telephone number and Internet web site address on the product label.

As for the online disclosure requirements, manufacturers must list all intentionally added ingredients and state their functional purpose.  All nonfunctional constituents present at above 0.01 percent (100 ppm) must also be listed.  The website must include electronic links for designated lists and a link to the hazard communication safety data sheet for the product.  In addition, specific requirements apply for the disclosure of fragrance allergens online.

The Act also adds a section to the California Labor Code imposing an obligation on employers who are required to provide employees with Safety Data Sheets (SDS).  Those employers must similarly make the printable information from the online disclosure available in the workplace.

Although it is a state law, the effect of the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act is certain to be felt by manufacturers across the country who sell their products into California, as is true of many of California’s other regulatory schemes, including Proposition 65, and will most likely result in a nationwide relabeling of covered products.

Given the Act’s numerous and in some cases highly technical requirements, manufacturers of cleaning products would be well advised to determine whether any of their products are subject to the Act, and take steps now to ensure compliance by 2020.  Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stand ready to help manufacturers handle all that is coming their way.

20
FEB
0

Advertising and Labeling, California Trade Regulations, Employment Law, Manufacturing, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Unfair Competition

, , , , , ,

Page 1 of 4 1234