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

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

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

Posted by:

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

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.

15
SEP
0

Beauty Industry, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Sales

, , , , , , , , ,

Navigating Civil Regulatory Issues: CK&E Presentation Highlights Key Regulations for Beauty Companies Doing Business in California

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys were featured speakers at the Beauty Industry West presentation “Navigating in Challenging Regulatory Waters:  Updates on California and Federal Compliance.”  About 150 entrepreneurs, consultants, executives and beauty industry professionals attended the event at the Crowne Plaza Hotel LAX in Los Angeles on October 15, 2013, which included a valuable networking session and a post-presentation Q&A.

CK&E’s presentation about legal regulatory issues for personal care product companies doing business in California included an overview of the California Organic Products Act (COPA), Proposition 65 (California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act) and California’s Green Chemistry Initiative including the new Safer Consumer Products Regulations.  Conkle, Kremer & Engel’s materials from the BIW event, including the “Navigating Civil Regulatory Issues” presentation and its “Resource Guide for Regulatory Compliance,” are available for download on CK&E’s Regulatory Compliance web page.

Co-presenter Donald Frey, an industry veteran, regulatory expert and product development and innovation consultant, presented on key regulatory issues from the business perspective, including how to effectively deal with regulators. Mr. Frey has generously agreed to share his presentation, available for download here.

Among the questions and answers covered after the presentation were the addition of titanium dioxide (airborne, unbound particles of respirable size) to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals, responsible entities for purposes of compliance with the Safer Consumer Products Regulations, and the determination of organic ingredients under the National Organic Program standards.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are frequent speakers at events of interest to the beauty industry due to their expertise in representing manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers and salons in all aspects of their business, including the challenges of regulatory compliance.

15
OCT
0

Beauty Industry, California Organic Products Act, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Green Chemistry Initiative, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Safer Consumer Products Regulations, Sales, Technology, Unfair Competition

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

Lead in Baby Food? Failure to Warn Leads to Unusual Prop 65 Trial

Posted by:

Lead in Baby Food? Failure to Warn Leads to Unusual Prop 65 Trial

Proposition 65 actions are notoriously expensive and difficult to defend.  For that reason, most Prop 65 cases settle.  But a rare case involving allegedly high levels of lead in baby food, packaged fruits and juices is in trial in the Alameda Superior Court.

In September 2011, the Environmental Law Foundation (one of a handful of organizations in California that files Prop 65 actions in the name of the public interest) brought a lawsuit against food companies Beech-Nut Nutrition, Dole, Gerber, Del Monte Foods, and many others.  ELF claimed that the manufacturers made and sold baby and children’s food containing lead, without a warning as required by Prop 65, California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act.

What is at stake in the Prop 65 action is whether baby food and children’s food such as carrot and potato baby food, grape juice and fruit cocktail must include a warning that the foods contain a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm.  Naturally, the food manufacturers do not wish to be forced to warn potential consumers that their foods contain harmful chemicals.

The food companies’ defenses are being tried to Superior Court Judge Steven A. Brick.  The food companies claim that their products contain only trace levels of lead that are below the level required for a Prop 65 warning.  They also claim that the lead is “naturally occurring” in the foods and therefore no duty to warn is required under the “naturally occurring” exposure defense to Prop 65.  Finally, the food companies have argued that Prop 65’s warning requirements are preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act.  They contend that the FDA has determined that the baby food and children’s food in question do not pose unacceptable risks to health, so a Prop 65 warning requirement would create a conflict between federal and state law.

This will be a closely-watched case, because the Court’s ruling on these defenses is likely to have a significant impact on the defenses available to businesses faced with Prop 65 actions in the future.  Regardless of the outcome, CK&E’s lawyers will continue to work with businesses to help them develop a plan of compliance so that they can achieve their goal of minimizing the risk of being named as a defendant in a Prop 65 lawsuit.  If a lawsuit is threatened or filed, CK&E’s lawyers apply can create and implement effective and cost-efficient defense strategies to minimize its impact.

25
APR
0

Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Unfair Competition

, , ,

Prop. 65 Reform — Is a Safe Harbor from Bounty Hunters on the Horizon?

Posted by:

Prop. 65 Reform — Is a Safe Harbor from Bounty Hunters on the Horizon?

California’s now-infamous Proposition 65 (Prop. 65, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.5) allows a private citizen to file a lawsuit against any business that fails to post adequate warnings about the presence of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm.  The private enforcer may seek an injunction, penalties of up to $2500 per violation, per day, and an award of attorneys’ fees.

Assembly Member Mike Gatto (43rd District of California)  recently proposed legislation, Assembly Bill 227, that would reform Prop. 65 by providing a “safe harbor” in the form of a 14-day period for businesses to correct alleged violations.  If enacted as proposed, a business who receives a demand under Prop. 65 would have a brief opportunity to demonstrate its compliance with Prop. 65 requirements to the California State Attorney General, or the responsible city attorney or district attorney.  If the business takes advantage of that “safe harbor” then the claimant would be barred from filing a lawsuit against that business.

While the purpose of Prop. 65’s private enforcement provision is to allow private citizens to act on behalf of the public to ensure warnings are properly posted, supporters of AB 227 criticize Prop. 65 as a “bounty hunter” statute that primarily benefits plaintiff’s attorneys.  In 2011, businesses paid a total of nearly $16 million to settle lawsuits brought by  private citizens, of which almost $12 million was paid to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.  In fact, nearly half of the attorneys’ fees were paid to a single firm: The Chanler Group.

AB 227 would give businesses the opportunity to come into compliance with Prop. 65 warning requirements without paying exorbitant settlement fees to prevent costly litigation.  But businesses would have to take swift action.  As CK&E attorneys John A. Conkle, Amy Burke and Mark Riedel discussed in their November 2012 presentation to the Personal Care Products Council, What’s Your Game Plan?, it is important for businesses to develop strategies for ensuring regulatory compliance and for handling notices of violation quickly and efficiently.  AB 227, if signed into law, would be another reason that businesses should prepare contingency plans for the day that they receive a notice of violation from plaintiffs seeking to take advantage of Prop. 65 — a business could avoid being sued at all if it responds quickly and correctly to take advantage of the safe harbor.  CK&E advises clients in regulatory compliance, responding to warning and demand letters, and developing an individualized game plan to suit each client’s needs.

18
MAR
0

Beauty Industry, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Manufacturing, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Sales, Technology, Unfair Competition

, , , , , , , , ,