News & Analysis as of

Appeals › California › Food Labeling

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Trial Court Strikes Down California’s Prop 65 Acrylamide Warning Requirements

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

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

Greenberg Glusker LLP

Judicial Burn: Court Declares Proposition 65 Acrylamide Warning Unconstitutional

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

Acrylamide, a Proposition 65-listed substance that naturally forms in the cooking and heating of many plant-based foods, has been the focus of court action over the past six years. However, companies will no longer be...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendants in Proposition 65 Coffee Case

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on

After 12 years of litigation, coffee manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are one step closer to closing the door on Proposition 65 warnings on coffee. Coffee generally does not require Proposition 65 warnings—this...more

King & Spalding

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Putative Class Action for Lack of Article III Standing

King & Spalding on

On December 4, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order dismissing, for lack of Article III standing, a putative class action involving allegations that the plaintiff was harmed by...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide