Mandatory Reporting of Chemically Formulated Products Underway:  Are You Ready?

Posted by:

Are you ready to comply with the California Air Resources Board’s new reporting requirements?

CARB recently issued the 2013 Consumer & Commercial Products Survey, which requires companies to report sales and formulation data for all chemically formulated consumer and commercial products that are sold or supplied for use in California.

CARB is authorized by law to collect data about chemically formulated products and from time to time gathers information through mandatory surveys.  The last such survey was in 2006.

According to CARB, the purpose of the 2013 Survey is to gather current information on volatile organic compounds (VOC), low vapor pressure VOC (LVP-VOC), and greenhouse gas (GHG) content from consumer and commercial products sold or supplied for use in California.  The Survey will also assist CARB in determining the feasibility of further reducing consumer product emissions, updating the consumer products emissions inventory, and evaluating emissions trends for consumer products.

The Survey requirements are detailed and require reporting of a wide variety of chemically formulated consumer and commercial products, even if those products do not contain any VOCs or contain low VOCs.  CARB has hosted informational webinars regarding the Survey.  The next CARB webinar is on December 15, 2014.

The 2013 Survey officially started on September 1, 2014, and all 2013 data must be reported to CARB by March 2, 2015.  But companies can expect to devote substantial resources well into 2016 to comply with CARB’s mandatory reporting requirements.  That’s because the Survey covers a three-year period and will require further reporting of sales and product ingredient data for 2014 and 2015, in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

In particular, data from the Survey will be used to help CARB prepare for the new State Implementation Plan (SIP) which by 2016 will be required to meet more stringent standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).  CARB is collecting data in preparation for the SIP, and is updating its emission inventories by collecting sales and ingredient data for all consumer product categories.

CARB has developed a list of pre-screening questions to help companies determine if they are required to submit survey data to CARB.  In general, each responsible party listed on the label of a consumer product that was sold or supplied for use in California during the calendar year, and falls into a category listed on that year’s Survey Category List, is required to report data to CARB.

The categories of consumer products that are subject to reporting are comprehensive:  California Air Resources Board 2013 Survey – List of Survey Categories  .Highlights from this list of the 2013 Survey categories include:

  • Personal Care Products: Antiperspirants and deodorants, body, hand and face cleaners, eyeglass and contact lens care products, facial and body treatments, fragrance products, hair care products, health use products, makeup cosmetics, nail care products, oral care products, shaving products, and pet care products
  • Adhesives, Sealants and Related Products: Adhesives, sealants and caulks
  • Household and Institutional Products: Air fresheners, odor removers/eliminators, other air scented products, arts and crafts supplies, cleaners and degreasers, dishwashing products, fabric, carpet and upholstery care products, food-related sprays and aerosol products, fuels and lighter materials, garden and lawn care products, laundry products, miscellaneous household products, office supply products, pool/spa/whirlpool/Jacuzzi/pond products, shoe and leather care products, waxes and polishes
  • Pesticide Products: Anti-microbial agents, fungicides and nematicides, herbicides, insecticides and repellants
  • Solvent and Thinning-Related Products: Electronic-related and miscellaneous solvent and thinning products
  • Vehicle and Marine Vessel Aftermarket Products: Detailing products and maintenance and repair products
  • Aerosol coating products: General coatings and specialty coatings

Conkle, Kremer & Engel monitors the latest developments in legal and regulatory issues to provide the most current legal guidance and counseling to its industry clients.

 

0

Chemical Peel Ingredient Trichloroacetic Acid (TCA) Requires a Proposition 65 Warning

Posted by:

Trichloroacetic acid (TCA), a chemical that is commonly used in cosmetic treatments such as chemical peels and for the removal of tattoos and treatment of skin tags, warts and moles, is now subject to Proposition 65’s warning requirement.  This means that any exposure to the chemical in California requires a warning that the chemical is “known to the State of California to cause cancer.”  The penalties for failing to provide the warning as required by Proposition 65 can be substantial:  The law authorizes civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day per violation.  In addition, attorney fees are authorized by California’s private attorney general statute – creating incentive for private Proposition 65 “bounty hunters” and their lawyers to target businesses who fail to comply.

Under Proposition 65, no legal action is authorized by the Attorney General, district attorneys or private enforcers until 12 months after the listing of that chemical.  TCA (CAS No. 76-03-9) was added to the list of chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer on September 13, 2013.  As a result, Proposition 65 private enforcers were allowed to start sending out Notices of Violation over alleged exposure to TCA without a warning beginning on September 14, 2014.  The law permits such private enforcers to file a lawsuit 60 days after the Notice of Violation is served.

In addition to TCA, the following chemicals became subject to Prop 65 enforcement action on September 14, 2014:  chloral (CAS No. 75-87-6), chloral hydrate (CAS No. 302-17-0) and 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane (CAS No. 630-20-6).

Conkle, Kremer & Engel has significant experience in helping businesses understand and comply with the requirements of Proposition 65 and other regulations to avoid exposure to liability.  In addition to working with businesses to develop an effective compliance strategy, CK&E handles all aspects of Proposition 65 defense, including responding efficiently if a Notice of Violation is received.

0

Nagoya Protocol: Response to Biopiracy Becomes Effective October 2014

Posted by:

The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization became effective on July 14, 2014, with its 50th ratification.  The Nagoya Protocol will begin to have a direct impact on the personal care and cosmetics industry on October 12, 2014.

With the increased consumer demand for natural and organic products, a growing number of companies in the beauty industry are drawing on biodiversity for its rich variety of native ingredients and as a way to differentiate their products.  The use of exotic ingredients sourced from countries rich in biodiversity means that companies need to be aware of the Nagoya Protocol and the country-specific “Access and Benefit Sharing” laws and regulations that exist and are being enacted.  The use of indigenous ingredients in hair care, skincare and cosmetics formulations – such as baobab oil extracted from the fruits of the baobab trees found across Africa or katafray bark extract from the katafray trees of Madagascar – may be a violation of the Nagoya Protocol if Access and Benefit Sharing requirements are not met.

The Nagoya Protocol is an international treaty focused on Access and Benefit-Sharing, which was adopted in 2010 by the United Nations’ Nagoya, Japan Convention on Biological Diversity.  The Nagoya Protocol arose from the interest of national governments to conserve and promote sustainable use of their countries’ biodiversity and protect against commercial biopiracy.  The purpose of the Nagoya Protocol is to support fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.

Generally, the Nagoya Protocol requires that access to a participating country’s genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge be subject to the “prior informed consent” of the party providing such resources.  The Nagoya Protocol also requires the sharing of the benefits arising from the commercialization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge with the owners of biodiversity, including the local communities and the indigenous people, on “mutually agreed terms.”

The Nagoya Protocol itself establishes only international norms and a framework for Access and Benefit Sharing measures, and does not impose Access and Benefit Sharing laws itself.  That is left to national legislation, and requires the contracting parties to implement their own Access and Benefit Sharing measures and to designate a competent national authority on ABS.  Many countries, including Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and India, already have national enabling laws and regulations.

Personal care product companies in particular also should be aware that their marketing and advertising of the products as containing native ingredients or drawing on traditional knowledge could subject them to a claim of biopiracy by national governments, local communities, and even non-governmental organizations.

Although the United States is not a contracting party to the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Nagoya Protocol, companies in the United States whose products utilize genetic resources or traditional knowledge from a member state, or are sold in a member state, must comply with the access and benefit sharing requirements.  It is imperative for companies to exercise due diligence to ensure that their raw material or ingredient suppliers have obtained prior informed consent for access to genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge used in their products, and mutually agreed terms for the sharing of benefits.

As a leader in providing legal services to the personal care products industry, CK&E can assist companies in instituting internal policies and procedures to help ensure compliance with the Nagoya Protocol.  CK&E will continue to monitor and provide updates about developments in the Nagoya Protocol.  The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol will be held in October 2014 in Pyeongchang, South Korea, concurrently with the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Full text of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization.  The countries that have ratified or acceded to the Nagoya Protocol to date are:

  • Albania
  • Belarus
  • Benin
  • Bhutan
  • Botswana
  • Burkina Faso
  • Burundi
  • Comoros
  • Côte d’Ivoire
  • Denmark
  • Egypt
  • Ethiopia
  • European Union
  • Fiji
  • Gabon
  • Gambia
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea-Bissau
  • Guyana
  • Honduras
  • Hungary
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Jordan
  • Kenya
  • Lao People’s Democratic Republic
  • Madagascar
  • Mauritius
  • Mexico
  • Micronesia (Federated States of)
  • Mongolia
  • Mozambique
  • Myanmar
  • Namibia
  • Niger
  • Norway
  • Panama
  • Peru
  • Rwanda
  • Samoa
  • Seychelles
  • South Africa
  • Spain
  • Sudan
  • Switzerland
  • Syrian Arab Republic
  • Tajikistan
  • Uganda
  • Uruguay
  • Vanuatu
  • Vietnam

 

0

California Attorney General Kamala Harris Promises to Scrutinize Prop 65 Settlements

Posted by:

As reported on the Conklelaw blog, the California Attorney General’s Office recently released its long-awaited 2013 report of Proposition 65 settlements.  The report reveals that private Proposition 65 bounty hunters collected nearly $17 million in civil penalties, payments in lieu of penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs from businesses during 2013.

Concurrently with the report, the Attorney General’s Office took the unusual step of releasing a letter directed to the Proposition 65 plaintiffs’ bar – a small group of attorneys and law firms who specialize in representing private enforcers.

The letter from the Attorney General’s Office letter characterizes the 2013 report as shining “a light on some of the aspects of private enforcement of Proposition 65 that result in unnecessary burdens for businesses and are cause for public concern.”

The letter expresses particular concern over Proposition 65 plaintiffs’ practice of collecting “Payments in Lieu of Penalties” (also known as PILPs).  PILPs are supposed to offset civil penalties in Proposition 65 cases, and are intended to fund activities that have some nexus to the basis for the Prop 65 enforcement action.  Proposition 65 bounty hunters have broadly interpreted such PILP-funded activities to include funding additional Proposition 65 litigation.  Unlike civil penalties, of which California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is entitled to 75 percent, the state does not receive any portion of PILPs.  In 2013, 21% of the money collected in private settlements was paid as PILPs.

The Attorney General’s Office also criticized the enormous attorneys’ fees routinely collected by private enforcers as part of Proposition 65 settlements, and promised to “redouble” efforts to evaluate attorney’s fees awards.  In 2013, nearly 75 percent of all of the Proposition 65 settlement money, or an astonishing $12.5 million, went straight to the plaintiffs’ lawyers.  Attorney General Harris concluded, “Clearly, the high transaction costs for resolving Proposition 65 cases continue to be cause for concern.  They are the reasons we have been redoubling our efforts to evaluate attorney’s fees awards in the private party settlements submitted to us. . . .”

Attorney General Harris’ pledge to actively scrutinize Proposition 65 settlements is consistent with her “hands-on” approach to attempting to curb private enforcement efforts.  In 2011, for example, the Attorney General filed an opposition to a motion to approve settlement in Held v. Aldo, challenging an attorney’s fee request for more than $5 million by the Chanler Group – one of the most active Proposition 65 plaintiff’s firms – as unreasonable.  Let’s hope Attorney General Harris backs her pledge with more direct and effective oversight to curb abuses of Proposition 65 by private enforcers.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are committed to guiding clients through the constantly changing landscape of Proposition 65 compliance and enforcement.

0

California Attorney General Reports Businesses Paid $17 Million to Settle Private Prop 65 Cases in 2013

Posted by:

And that’s the “good news” – in 2012 it was $20 million.

The California Attorney General’s Office recently released its annual report of Proposition 65 settlements.  The report confirms what most businesses are already painfully aware:  Proposition 65 continues to be a thriving business for private Proposition 65 plaintiffs and their lawyers, who make millions of dollars in the name of the “public interest.”

While private plaintiffs did not reap as much in 2013 as they did in 2012 ($20 million), they did manage to collect $17 million.  That represents the third largest haul for bounty hunters since 2000, when the Attorney General’s Office began collecting the data and publishing annual reports.net

The summary reveals that in 2013 alone, private Proposition 65 plaintiffs acting in the “public interest” and their lawyers entered into a whopping 350 private settlements or consent judgments with businesses alleged to be in violation of Proposition 65, and collected $16,812,396.  In contrast, the Attorney General and local District Attorney each filed a single action.

Proposition 65 requires the State of California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.  Businesses are required to warn consumers before exposing them to any one of more than 800 listed chemicals, by either labeling or posting a notice.  If a business does not comply, it can be liable for substantial civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day.

Proposition 65 has become a disturbingly lucrative operation for private enforcers, frequently called “bounty hunters,” who serve dozens if not hundreds of Notices of Violation on unsuspecting businesses.  These bounty hunters threaten to sue unless they are paid off in private settlements.  If a private settlement cannot be reached, they proceed with a lawsuit and try to force a settlement to avoid the cost of defense.

Proposition 65 allows private enforcers to keep 25 percent of all civil penalties collected, with the remaining 75 percent going to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).  In addition, private enforcers pocket 100% of so-called payments in lieu of penalties, or PILPs.  Whereas OEHHA would receive 75% of monies designated as civil penalties, OEHHA does not receive any portion of monies designated as PILPs.  Finally and most significantly, private enforcers’ lawyers are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the State’s private attorney general doctrine.

The 2013 report shows that only one-tenth of all monies collected by private enforcers went to the State of California.  The rest of the money went to the bounty hunters and their lawyers:

  • $12,426,052, or 74%, went directly to the private enforcers’ lawyers as attorneys’ fees and costs
  • $596,977.25, or 3.6%, went directly to private-enforcer plaintiffs
  • $1,998,435, or 12%, went indirectly to private-enforcer plaintiffs as a payment in lieu of penalty
  • $1,790,931.75, or 11%, went to OEHHA.

The report also shows continued aggressive activity by a handful of Proposition 65 private enforcers.  At the top of the list are:

  • Center for Environmental Health (represented by Lexington Law Group) with 62 settlements or consent judgments totaling more than $3.3 million
  • Russell Brimer (represented by Chanler Group) with 60 settlements or consent judgments totaling more than $2.4 million
  • Peter Englander (represented by Chanler Group) with 46 settlements or consent judgments totaling more than $1.6 million
  • John Moore (represented by Chanler Group) with 41 settlements or consent judgments totaling more than $2 million
  • Environmental Research Center (represented by various law firms including Law Office of Karen A. Evans and Michael Freund & Associates) with 34 settlements or consent judgments totaling more than $2.8 million
  • Consumer Advocacy Group (represented by Yeroushalmi & Associates) with 25 settlements or consent judgments totaling more than $1.3 million

The Prop 65 outlook for businesses in 2014 does not look much better.  In particular, the June 2013 listing of cocamide DEA, a common ingredient in beauty and personal care products, such as liquid soaps and shampoos, has spawned dozens of lawsuits and hundreds of businesses have been named as defendants.  Numerous settlements have already been approved by the Alameda Superior Court this year, leading to speculation that the total settlements in 2014 will likely exceed the total settlements in 2013.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel routinely represents businesses against Proposition 65 claims and lawsuits brought by private enforcers, as well as counsels businesses on compliance with Proposition 65 in order to avoid becoming a future target of private enforcers.

 

0

New York Assembly Passes First Ban on Microbeads; California and Other States Expected to Follow

Posted by:

Legislators in several states, including California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota, and Ohio, have recently introduced legislation to ban the use of “microplastics” in personal care products.  Such “microplastics” are tiny plastic microbeads, defined in the legislation as 5 millimeters or less in all dimensions.  They are typically found in personal care products such as hand and body soap, exfoliates, shampoos, toothpastes and face and body scrubs. They are included in products to improve performance, but have been the subject of intense scrutiny because of concern about their environmental impact, including contribution to water pollution. The microbeads are small enough to wash down the drain, but are not being caught by sewage treatment facilities.

On May 5, 2014, the New York State Assembly unanimously passed New York Assembly Bill A08744, the “Microbead-Free Waters Act,” which would prohibit the sale of personal cosmetic products that contain the tiny plastic particles. The bill is now before the New York State Senate; if passed into law, it would take effect January 1, 2016.

California Assembly Bill 1699, introduced February 13, 2014, would similarly prohibit the sale or offer for promotional purposes of any personal care products containing microplastics on or after January 1, 2018.   The so-called “Microplastic Nuisance Prevention Law” would impose civil penalties on violators of up to $2,500 per day for each violation in actions brought by the Attorney General or local officials, as well as permit injunctions to be imposed on violators.  The bill provides an exemption for products that contain less than 1 part per million (ppm) by weight of microplastic.  Like Proposition 65, businesses employing fewer than 10 employees are exempt from compliance.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel monitors the latest developments on legal and regulatory issues affecting the personal care products industry to provide expert guidance to its industry clients.

0

DTSC Announces Proposed Priority Products Subject to California Green Chemistry Initiative

Posted by:

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has identified the first three groups of products that may become “Priority Products” subject to reporting and alternatives assessments requirements under California’s strict new Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Regulations.

The three groups of products on this initial list of proposed “Priority Products” are:

  • Children’s foam padded sleeping products containing the flame retardant Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP or Tris)
  • Spray polyurethane foam (SPF) systems containing unreacted diisocyanates
  • Paint and varnish strippers and surface cleaners containing methylene chloride

Rulemaking on the proposed “Priority Products” list is expected to begin in late June 2014, with the final “Priority Products” list to be finalized by the following year by adoption of regulations.

If the product-chemical combinations announced by DTSC end up on the list of final “Priority Products,” manufacturers and other responsible entities (including importers, assemblers and even retailers) of these products will be required to notify DTSC and either remove the product from sale, reformulate to remove or replace the chemical of concern in the product, or perform a complex “Alternatives Analysis” to retain the chemical in the product.

As widely expected, the initial “Priority Products” list targets children’s foam padded sleeping products containing the flame retardant Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP or Tris), such as nap mats and pads in soft-sided portable cribs, infant travel beds, portable infant sleepers, playards, play pens, bassinets and nap cots.

In addition, the initial “Priority Products” list targets all paint and varnish removers, paint and varnish strippers and surface cleaners that contain methylene chloride.  Spray polyurethane foam systems containing diisocyanates, both professional and consumer grade, are also proposed to be subject to regulation.  Such products are used for insulation, roofing, sealing and filling of voids and gaps.

TDCPP, methylene chloride, and toluene diisocynate are known carcinogens and exposures to the chemical to Californians above the no significant risk level require a warning under Proposition 65.  TDCPP was recently listed in October 2011 as a chemical regulated by Proposition 65.

The announcement of these three product groups as proposed “Priority Products” does not trigger any duty on product manufacturers until the DTSC finalizes the list of priority products by adopting regulations.  However, manufacturers of children’s foam padded sleeping products containing TDCPP, spray polyurethane foam systems containing diisocyanates, and paint and varnish strippers and surface cleaners containing methylene chloride are well advised to be proactive and take steps to determine whether the chemical can be removed from their products or replaced with a safer alternative chemical.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel regularly assists businesses to develop plans to ensure compliance with California’s ever-changing regulations, including the Safer Consumer Products Regulations and Green Chemistry Initiative.

0

Could a Pending Federal Safe Cosmetics Act Preempt the California Safe Cosmetics Act?

Posted by:

After nine years, the California Safe Cosmetics Act is suddenly in the news, now that the California Safe Cosmetics Program Product Database has been posted for the public.  The California Safe Cosmetics Act requires manufacturers of cosmetic products to be sold in California to report any ingredients in their products that have been identified to the California Department of Public Health as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity.

While no federal counterpart to the California Safe Cosmetics Act presently exists, legislation to amend Chapter VI of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act or FDCA, 21 U.S.C. § 361 et seq.) has been introduced in every session of Congress since 2010.  The latest version of the bill, the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013, seeks to ensure the safe use of cosmetics by creating a uniform system of registration of cosmetic companies, set national safety standards for cosmetic ingredients, and provide recall authority.  The bill was proposed March 21, 2013 (H.R. 1385, sponsored by Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D. Ill.)), and remains pending during the 2013-2014 legislative session. It remains an open question whether any finally enacted federal law regulating cosmetics ingredient safety may preempt state authorities’ regulation in the same area.  That is an issue in which the Personal Care Products industry should be keenly interested.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel lawyers keep abreast of developments in regulatory compliance matters to help clients proactively create and execute plans to remain competitive while meeting their compliance requirements.

0

Safe Cosmetics Act Database to Go Public in 2014: Watch for More Lawsuits

Posted by:

In a previous blog post, we referred to the Safe Cosmetics Act as a “sleeper” because it has been in existence for several years but has been little noticed and seldom used.  That is likely to change in 2014.

The Safe Cosmetics Act was enacted in 2005 and became effective January 1, 2007.  Businesses manufacturing cosmetics sold in California were required to make their initial report to the California Department of Public Health by December 15, 2009.  Reporting must be made on a continuous basis, such as when formulation changes add a “suspect” chemical to an existing cosmetic product.  The Safe Cosmetics Act is so little-known that many manufacturers may have missed the reporting requirements, or complied as to some products but failed to update their reporting as product formulations changed.  So far, those omissions have rarely had any significant impact on manufacturers, but that is likely to start changing now.

The relative quietude may change in 2014 because by December 31, 2013 the CDPH must make a publicly accessible database available on its website containing all of the information collected pursuant to the Safe Cosmetics Act.  The information included in the database could be used by enterprising Prop 65 bounty hunters searching for products that contain chemicals that are subject to the warning requirements of Prop 65.  And the failure to report required information timely or accurately may be the basis for future unfair competition lawsuits by private parties, including consumers and competitors.

As a harbinger of the potential consequences for manufacturers, in January 2012 the California Attorney General’s Office announced the first law enforcement action taken under the Safe Cosmetics Act against a manufacturer of “Brazilian Blowout” products.  But the manufacturer’s failure comply with the Safe Cosmetics Act’s reporting requirement was only one of many business acts and practices alleged to violate California’s Unfair Competition Law.  The Attorney General also alleged violations of California’s False Advertising Law and Proposition 65.  The end result was a consent judgment that required the manufacturer to pay $300,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs and an additional $300,000 civil penalty for violation of Prop 65.  The manufacturer was also subject to numerous injunctions, including a requirement that it report in compliance with the Safe Cosmetics Act.  Private claimants such as Prop 65 bounty hunters are likely to take notice of the newly available information and any failures to comply.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel stays up to date on regulatory compliance matters to provide continued expert legal guidance to clients.  Conkle, Kremer & Engel has decades of experience representing clients in the personal care products and cosmetics industry, and understand the unique regulatory compliance concerns facing manufacturers, distributors and retailers.

0

Prop 65 Notices and Lawsuits Target Cocamide DEA

Posted by:

Cocamide DEA (coconut oil diethanolamine condensate) is a common ingredient in personal care products.  It is a viscous liquid used as a foaming agent in shampoo and soap products and as an emulsifying agent in cosmetics.  It can be found in shampoos, liquid soaps, body washes and bubble baths, among other products.  In June 2012 Cocamide DEA was added to the list of Proposition 65 chemicals, and warning requirements took effect one year later, on June 22, 2013.  To date, Notices of Violation concerning cocamide DEA exposure have been served on more than 350 businesses, and public enforcers have filed at least 16 lawsuits, most of them naming numerous defendants.  Lawsuits have been filed in both Los Angeles and Alameda Counties.

Proposition 65 is California’s right-to-know statute that requires businesses to provide clear and reasonable warnings before exposing Californians to a wide range of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm or both.  Proposition 65 requires a 60-day Notice of Violation to be served before public enforcers may file a lawsuit for alleged violation of the law.  The public enforcers who have served Proposition 65 Notices of Violation with respect to exposure to cocamide DEA include Center for Environmental Health, Shefa LMV LLC and ProtectConsumers LLC.  In addition, a number of individuals have become involved in Proposition 65 enforcement actions concerning cocamide DEA.  These individuals – Mark Lewis, Crystal Gerard, Mark Bates, Natisha Meloncon and Latonia Edge – are all represented by The Law Offices of Morse Mehrban.

2013 has been a particularly difficult year for manufacturers, distributors and sellers of personal care products.  In addition to cocamide DEA, other chemicals commonly found in personal care products and cosmetics became subject to Proposition 65 enforcement in 2013, including benzophenone and diethanolamine.

Businesses should carefully review the contents of the products they manufacture or distribute to determine whether those products may contain cocamide DEA.  Notices of Violation followed by prompt lawsuits have become the norm for alleged exposure to cocamide DEA.  Businesses must be proactive in protecting themselves from Prop 65 bountyhunters.  CK&E regularly helps clients with Prop 65 compliance issues.  If a Notice of Violation is received, CK&E handles responses to Notices of Violation and defense of businesses in Prop 65 actions to help resolve claims as efficiently and economically as possible.

0
Page 3 of 4 1234