News & Analysis as of

California › Proposition 65 › Corporate Counsel

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

King & Spalding

New Federal Court Decision Holds Proposition 65 Warnings Are Not Required Where There Was No Scientific Consensus on the...

King & Spalding on

In an important decision under California’s Proposition 65, a federal court recently ruled that businesses cannot be required to provide a product warning under Proposition 65 where there is no scientific consensus on whether...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

New Target for Prop 65 Plaintiffs: Bisphenol-S

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on

The New Year rings in with a likely wave of new enforcement actions under California’s Proposition 65 targeting Bisphenol-S (BPS), a popular substitute chemical for Bisphenol-A (BPA) which itself has been targeted by...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Has California Opened the Door to Bring Suit Against “Shill” Plaintiffs in Prop 65, ADA and Other Repeat-Plaintiff Litigation?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The California Court of Appeal recently ruled that a firm used a “shill plaintiff” in a failed suit over a “Made in the USA” label, potentially opening the door for suit against similar repeat plaintiffs in other types of...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