2025 will be a landmark year in the regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), which have been nicknamed “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment. For decades, PFAS have been used...more
California recently amended its Proposition 65 regulations to add several additional alternative “safe harbor” warning labels for foods containing acrylamide, a naturally-occurring byproduct that can result during high-heat...more
11/12/2024
/ California ,
First Amendment ,
Legislative Agendas ,
New Legislation ,
New Regulations ,
New Rules ,
OEHHA ,
Proposition 65 ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Warning Labels
Has the final bell rung for PFAS in food packaging? On February 28, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that all grease-proofing agents containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) “are no longer...more
2023 was a busy year for Prop 65 with the highest number of Notices of Violation since its inception. The California law requires consumers receive warnings regarding the presence of chemicals that cause cancer or...more
Under California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”), businesses are required to give “clear and reasonable warnings” to consumers regarding potential chemical exposure if their product contains a chemical “known to the state to...more
11/15/2023
/ Appeals ,
California ,
Chemicals ,
Commercial Speech ,
Enforcement ,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
OEHHA ,
Product Labels ,
Proposition 65 ,
Warning Labels
Companies should regularly assess their Prop 65 compliance. Products, packaging, business relationships, and the rules for compliance are constantly changing. Start 2023 off right with a review of your compliance practices to...more
California has approved a new, alternative “Safe Harbor” warning label for foods containing acrylamide, a naturally-occurring byproduct that occurs during high-heat cooking. Whether the new regulation moots the California...more
12/14/2022
/ California ,
Cancer ,
First Amendment ,
New Legislation ,
New Regulations ,
New Rules ,
OEHHA ,
Proposition 65 ,
Public Comment ,
Safe Harbors ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Warning Labels
California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq.) (“Prop 65”) is a California law that prohibits any person in the course of doing business from “knowingly and...more
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) recently proposed a regulation that would provide more certainty to businesses regarding the Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) warning requirements for cooked foods. ...more
The world’s commerce has come to a screeching halt in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, many businesses are finding it difficult or maybe even impossible to perform their obligations under their business...more
The COVID-19 (“coronavirus”) public health crisis has caused unprecedented business disruptions and uncertainty for existing contractual obligations. While many are focused on whether a force majeure clause will be triggered...more
Many of us think of coffee as a morning essential, however, there has been a long running debate between California regulators, courts, business, and consumer advocates regarding whether coffee must have a Proposition 65...more
3/11/2020
/ American Cancer Society ,
Beverage Manufacturers ,
Cancer ,
Chamber of Commerce ,
False Statements ,
First Amendment ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
OEHHA ,
Proposition 65 ,
Scientific Evidence ,
Starbucks ,
State Attorneys General ,
Toxic Chemicals
The global Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19” or “coronavirus”) outbreak has caused supply chain disruptions to businesses around the world. From delayed production to halted factory operations and slim shipping and...more
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently adopted amendments to California Code of Regulations, section 25600.2 – the section titled “Responsibility to Provide Consumer Product Exposure...more
1/30/2020
/ Amended Regulation ,
Consumer Product Companies ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Distributors ,
Manufacturers ,
Notice Requirements ,
OEHHA ,
Proposition 65 ,
Retailers ,
Supply Chain ,
Toxic Chemicals ,
Toxic Exposure ,
Warning Labels
Makah Indian Tribe, et al. v. Quileute Indian Tribe et al., 813 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). -
Defying the universal notion that whales and seals are, in fact, mammals, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed in part, and...more
TDY Holdings v. United States, et al., 872 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) -
TDY brought suit for contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) against the U.S. government...more
4/30/2018
/ Appeals ,
CERCLA ,
Chemicals ,
Clean-Up Costs ,
Contamination ,
Cost Allocation ,
Environmental Claims ,
Federal Contractors ,
Governmental Liability ,
Hazardous Substances ,
Manufacturing Facilities ,
Military Contracts
Sturgeon v. Frost, et al., 872 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2017).
In September 2011, moose hunter John Sturgeon brought an action against the National Park Service (“Park Service”), alleging it inappropriately banned him from using...more
4/23/2018
/ Alaska ,
ANILCA ,
Commerce Clause ,
Hunting ,
Land Preservation ,
Motor Vehicles ,
National Park Service ,
National Parks ,
Navigable Waters ,
Public Land ,
State-Owned Enterprises ,
Water Rights
If your products are sold online or you operate a website with sales to consumers in California, these changes will impact whether you can obtain “safe harbor” protection under Prop 65.
Over a year after adopting new...more
3/9/2018
/ Corporate Counsel ,
Health and Safety ,
Internet Retailers ,
New Guidance ,
New Regulations ,
OEHHA ,
Product Labels ,
Proposition 65 ,
Safe Harbors ,
Warning Labels ,
Website Warnings ,
Websites
WildEarth Guardians v. United States Bureau of Land Management, et al., 870 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2017). WildEarth Guardians and the Sierra Club (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought a claim under the Administrative Procedure...more
United States of America v. Osage Wind, LLC et al., 871 F.3d 1078 2017 WL 4109940 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 2017). Causing heartburn for project applicants developing on tribal land, the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court...more
3/2/2018
/ Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ,
Department of the Interior ,
Excavation ,
Land Developers ,
Mineral Extraction ,
Mineral Leases ,
Mining ,
Native American Issues ,
Permits ,
Secretary of the Interior ,
Summary Judgment ,
Tribal Lands ,
Wind Farm ,
Wind Power
Asarco, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 866 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017). In a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) contribution case, the Ninth Circuit addressed three issues of...more
2/28/2018
/ CERCLA ,
Chapter 11 ,
Civil Monetary Penalty ,
Clean Water Act ,
Consent Decrees ,
Contaminated Properties ,
Contribution Claims ,
Environmental Liability ,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
Hazardous Waste ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Liability ,
RCRA ,
Remedial Actions ,
Settlement Agreements ,
Split of Authority ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Summary Judgment ,
Time-Barred Claims
What is Prop 65? -
Prop 65 is a California law that requires California consumers receive warnings regarding the presence of chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The law is highly technical, constantly...more
Prop 65 Plaintiffs routinely file most Prop 65 cases in Alameda County, presumably because they believe it is a plaintiff-friendly forum. However, the California Court of Appeal recently issued a victory for Prop 65...more
1/9/2018
/ Agricultural Sector ,
Drinking Water ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Motion to Transfer ,
Natural Products ,
Proposition 65 ,
Retail Market ,
Safe Drinking Water Act ,
Toxic Exposure ,
Transfer of Venue ,
Venue
Asarco LLC v. Noranda Mining, Inc., 844 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2017). In a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) contribution action, the Tenth Circuit ruled that a mining company, whose...more
Citizens for Odor Nuisance Abatement v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 5th 350 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). The Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal concluded that the City of San Diego could not be held...more