A Federal District Court in California has ruled that Proposition 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide are unconstitutional. The California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) sued five years ago challenging the...more
6/17/2025
/ Appeals ,
California ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Enforcement Actions ,
First Amendment ,
Food Labeling ,
Food Manufacturers ,
Proposition 65 ,
State Attorneys General ,
Warning Labels
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
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