News & Analysis as of

California › Warning Labels › Appeals

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

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

District Court Issues Permanent Injunction Enjoining Enforcement of Prop 65 Warning Requirements for Dietary Acrylamide

Farella Braun + Martel LLP on

On May 2, 2025, the Eastern District of California found that Prop 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide violate the First Amendment, and granted a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of those warnings....more

ArentFox Schiff

Prop 65 Roundup - December 2023

ArentFox Schiff on

Third Time’s A Charm: California Re-Introduces Proposed Changes to Proposition 65’s Warnings and Safe Harbor Requirements - On October 27, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

The Intersection of Prop 65 and Free Speech: A Recent Win for Businesses

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

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

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

Perkins Coie

California State Appeals Court Affirms Bong Maker’s Win in Prop. 65 Suit

Perkins Coie on

A California state appeals court affirmed a bong maker’s win in a suit alleging it violated California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by failing to warn consumers that its products expose them to marijuana smoke that could cause...more

7 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