Appeals, Warning Labels, Food Labeling

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on 6/17/2025

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

Judicial Burn: Court Declares Proposition 65 Acrylamide Warning Unconstitutional

Greenberg Glusker LLP on 5/8/2025

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

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 10/28/2022

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

The Latest in the Prop. 65 World: Jury Trials; Inorganic Arsenic in Rice; and the FDA Weighs in on Coffee

Downey Brand LLP on 9/7/2018

There have been several major developments in the Proposition 65 world this summer. Below we summarize these latest developments in more detail. They include: (1) the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District...more

California Appeals Court Reverses Decision Requiring Proposition 65 Warnings on Cereals for Acrylamide

Hogan Lovells on 8/6/2018

A California appeals court has reversed a trial court decision that would require businesses to post Proposition 65 cancer warnings on certain breakfast cereals for acrylamide. The court ruled that a Proposition 65 warning...more

Court Determines Breakfast Cereal Currently Does Not Require Prop 65 Warnings

Downey Brand LLP on 8/1/2018

A recent appellate decision from the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles has determined that breakfast cereals do not require a Proposition 65 warning for acrylamide. Post Foods, LLC v. Superior Court of Los...more

Precedent-Setting Proposition 65 Pre-emption Decision Involving Breakfast Cereal

Perkins Coie on 7/24/2018

Last week, the California Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff’s suit seeking to require Proposition 65 acrylamide based cancer warnings on 59 popular breakfast cereals was preempted by federal nutrition policies aimed at...more

Circuit Court Grants Writ of Mandamus Requiring EPA to Act on Petition to Ban Chlorpyrifos

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. on 8/25/2015

In an opinion issued on August 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a writ of mandamus requested by Pesticide Action Network North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council (Petitioners)...more

Impact of California Appellate Decision on Proposition 65 Actions Unclear

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on 5/22/2015

On April 28, 2015, the Environmental Law Foundation (“ELF”) filed a petition in the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., et...more

Calif. Appellate Court Endorses Averaging Lead Exposure in Food and Beverage Prop. 65 Disputes

McGuireWoods LLP on 3/25/2015

In a rare published decision concerning California’s expansive Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as “Prop 65,” the California Court of Appeal on March 17, 2015, dealt companies a victory in...more

California Appellate Court Takes on Proposition 65 Warning Triggers

Mintz - Consumer Product Safety Viewpoints on 3/24/2015

Auburn Courthouse Prop 65Recent attempts to modify California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Proposition 65, have been the work of the California Legislature. (See A Sane Tweak To Proposition 65 and...more

Appeals › Warning Labels › Food Labeling

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