The Conkle Firm to Advance Legislative Awareness of Personal Care Product Issues

Posted by:

On April 22, 2015, Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney John Conkle will again participate in the Personal Care Products Council California Lobby Day, an annual event organized by the PCPC and held at the California State Capitol in Sacramento.

The ambitious, single-day event puts the spotlight on the personal care industry as a key industry for the California economy.  According to the PCPC, the beauty and personal care products industry positively affects California in at least the following ways:

  • The industry contributes $22 billion to the state’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
  • The industry contributes $6 billion to the state in taxes
  • The industry employs over 500,000 workers associated with the manufacture, distribution and sale of cosmetics and personal care products
  • There are over 550,000 licensed beauty professionals in the salon and spa industry

The PCPC’s annual Lobby Day includes a full day of meetings with legislators and state officials, starting with a meeting at the Governor’s Office with top administrative officials.  The meetings are followed by educational briefings for legislative staff.  While the briefings for staff are taken place, PCPC staff and members will visit legislative offices to speak with lawmakers about bills of interest.  The day concludes with a legislative reception for California legislators, the Governor’s Office staff and Administration officials.

Among the legislation that is likely to be addressed with lawmakers at Lobby Day are

  • Assembly Bill (AB) 888 (Bloom), which would prohibit the sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads after January 1, 2020, and
  • AB 708 (Jones-Sawyer), which would prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of certain consumer products unless the manufacturer discloses each ingredient contained in the product by posting that information on the product label and on the manufacturer’s website, and provides the website and web page address on the product label, along with a prescribed statement.

Other bills of interest to PCPC include the Proposition 65 bill AB 543 (Quirk), which would provide that a person in the course of doing business does not knowingly and intentionally expose an individual to a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity if there exists an exposure assessment that meets specified requirements.  In addition, the PCPC will present its positions on hazardous waste bill AB 1075 (Alejo) and pharmaceutical waste bills AB 901 (Gordon) and AB 45 (Mullin) with legislative officials.  Other key regulatory issues of importance to the personal care industry such as Green Chemistry, Proposition 65, Hazardous Waste, California Organic Products Act and Air Quality are also expected to be addressed at Lobby Day.

CK&E regularly participates in personal care product industry events.  As an active member of the PCPC, CK&E is pleased to support the industry’s efforts to advance the legal and regulatory interests of the PCPC and its member companies and is proud to have been invited to again participate in California Lobby Day.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

California Proposition 65 Warnings for DINP Exposure are Required Soon

Posted by:

Starting December 20, 2014, products sold in California that contain diisononyl phthalate (DINP) will require a Proposition 65 warning.

DINP is found is many soft plastic and vinyl products.  DINP is used as a plasticizer in a wide variety of products including apparel, footwear, sporting goods, gloves, fashion accessories, school supplies, shower curtains, bath mats and other home accessories, garden hoses, toys, vinyl flooring, and electrical wire and cables.

DINP was added to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals on December 20, 2013 as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.  By law, the warning requirements go into effect one year after the listing.  Accordingly, the Proposition 65 warning requirement for products causing an exposure to DINP will start on December 20, 2014.

Businesses that manufacture, sell, or distribute products in California containing DINP are required to provide a warning to consumers that the product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.  The warning is required unless the exposure is so low as to pose no significant risk to cancer.  The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has not established a safe harbor level for DINP.

The phthalate DINP is presently banned in certain children’s toys and products in concentrations of greater than 0.1 percent under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008.  Other phthalates that are already on the Proposition 65 chemical list include di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DnHP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) and di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP).

Companies that have not reformulated their products to remove DINP, or that fail to provide a Proposition 65 warning on products containing DINP, by December 20, 2014 are at risk of receiving a “Notice of Violation” from private enforcers seeking tens of thousands of dollars in penalties and attorneys’ fees.  A Notice of Violation typically precedes a lawsuit for violation of Proposition 65.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel has extensive experience in the area of Proposition 65.  CK&E provides businesses with legal counseling and guidance on compliance with Proposition 65.  CK&E also regularly assists businesses in responding to Notices of Violation and defending claims for violation of Proposition 65 in litigation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Attends the International Congress of Esthetics and Spa

Posted by:

On Sept. 7 Conkle, Kremer & Engel lawyer Eric Engel visited the annual ICES skin care and spa trade show in Long Beach, California. The event, held each year at the Long Beach Convention Center, is one of the country’s premier shows for the professional beauty, skincare and spa and wellness industries.  It features more than 200 exhibitors, including manufacturers, distributors, spas and wellness centers, and thousands of professionals from the national and international spa and wellness market.  ICES offers a unique opportunity for CK&E to meet and interact with clients and other professionals in the beauty industry, and stay on the inside track about the industry’s latest developments and trends.

Speaking of industry trends, if you still think Proposition 65 is not a big issue for the beauty industry, take a look at this ICES booth display for Mineralogie:

Long Beach International Congress of Esthetics and Spa

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
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.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm is Featured in April 2014 Beauty Industry Report

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel is proud to again be the subject of a feature interview in the industry-leading publication, Beauty Industry Report (BIR).  BIR is a monthly 24-page executive newsletter for professionals that focuses on the emerging trends affecting the beauty industry.  CK&E’s feature interview assessed the latest legal trends, based on CK&E’s decades of experience in the industry.  Topics covered included trademark and brand protection, both international and domestic, regulatory compliance issues such as California’s Proposition 65 and the Safe Cosmetics Act, issues in manufacturer-distributor relationships, and more.

The attached article includes links to topical blog posts and websites referenced in the interview.  CK&E wishes to thank BIR’s Mike Nave for taking the initiative to disseminate information about these important industry issues.  BIR proved again that working in the beauty industry without reading BIR is like working in finance without reading The Wall Street Journal.

BIR Feature Interview of CK&E

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Teaches International Entrepreneurs in BIMA Program

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney Mark Kremer has been honored to participate in and contribute to the revolutionary Beauty Industry Market Access (BIMA) program through the Center for International Trade Development (CITD).  The BIMA program was developed and is led by beauty industry guru Patty Schmucker and international trade expert Cesar Arellanes, the Director of CITD in Long Beach.   BIMA is a five week intensive international trade and business education program taught by leading health and beauty industry experts. BIMA participants focus on key program principles distinct to conducting business overseas, receive bi-monthly objectives for assessing their business, and ultimately produce an export growth plan exclusive to their business. Participants also have access to upcoming trade missions to the world’s largest emerging market beauty trade shows – effective venues for executing learned principles and business plans.

Mark contributes to the BIMA educational program by teaching modules on domestic and foreign intellectual property protection, domestic regulatory compliance, and international distribution agreements.   Participants are particularly interested in cost-effective methods of protecting their intellectual property internationally, such as international trademark registrations through the Madrid System.  The Madrid System offers a centralized application process for trademark registration in over 90 countries based on a brand owner’s domestic application or registration.  Participants are also interested in CK&E’s practical approach to domestic regulatory compliance, including California’s evolving green chemistry initiative, Safe Cosmetics Act and Proposition 65.  Participants have also benefited from CK&E’s tips for forging fruitful business relationships with distributors, based on decades of experience representing clients in the personal care products industry.

CK&E will join Patty Schmucker and several graduates of the BIMA educational program to Cosmoprof Worldwide in Bologna in April 2014.  Mark looks forward to the next BIMA session, which begins on June 26, 2014.  Click for further information about joining the BIMA program: BIMA_Summer-Fall_2014

 

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Presents Hot California Regulatory Compliance Issues in New York

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney John A. Conkle was the featured speaker at a special presentation given on February 11, 2014 in New York, New York to business executives and lawyers.

The presentation, entitled “Are Your Products California-Bound?  Dealing With California’s Unique Regulatory Schemes,” provided valuable information about and insight into such California regulatory laws and initiatives as:

  • Proposition 65 (California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986)
  • California Safe Cosmetics Act
  • California Green Chemistry Initiative (the Safer Consumer Products Regulations)
  • California Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Regulations
  • California Organic Products Act (COPA)
  • California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)

California’s vast and ever-changing regulations pose a challenge for businesses no matter where they may be located.  Any business manufacturing, distributing or selling products into California needs to comply with California’s regulatory schemes to stay out of difficulty with the California Attorney General, regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), bounty hunters, putative class action plaintiffs and even competitors.

CK&E was honored to team with the New York-based law firm Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C., which specializes in intellectual property, to provide this presentation. CK&E has worked with the Gottlieb firm for nearly 25 years on matters of common interest to our clients. CK&E’s active regulatory compliance practice has helped clients in numerous industries – including  such diverse areas as personal care products, alcoholic beverages, construction and recreational equipment.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0
Page 4 of 6 «...23456