News & Analysis as of

California › Warning Labels › Enforcement Actions

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

Wave of Enforcement Actions Initiated under California’s Prop 65 Targets Thermal Receipts at California Stores

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani on

In the first half of 2025, two private enforcers have targeted over 200 companies operating in the state for purported exposure to Bisphenol S (BPS) from retail store thermal receipts provided to customers in California. The...more

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

Court Finds Requiring Prop. 65 Warnings for Acrylamide in Food is Unconstitutional

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

On May 2, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a landmark ruling in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, Case No. 2:19-cv-02019, holding that Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”) warning...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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Prop 65: Changes to Short-Form Warnings Will Cause Long-Term Impacts

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently amended its regulations concerning requirements for consumer product warnings to qualify for “safe harbor” protection from enforcement actions...more

Greenberg Glusker LLP

Paper Problems: BPS in Thermal Receipts Triggers Prop. 65 NOVs

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

California shoppers might be getting more than just a receipt at checkout — they may also be exposed to a toxic chemical, according to Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”) enforcer Center for Environmental Health (CEH) represented by...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Proposition 65: 2023 in Review

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

2023 was a busy year for Prop 65 with the highest number of Notices of Violation since its inception. The California law requires consumers receive warnings regarding the presence of chemicals that cause cancer or...more

ArentFox Schiff

PFAS-Containing Consumer Products Under Attack in California

ArentFox Schiff on

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are present in a variety of consumer products. PFAS have been increasingly targeted in laws and regulations and have served as a hotbed for class action lawsuits, particularly in...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

The Grace Period for Proposition 65 Cannabis and CBD Reproductive Harm Warning Expired On January 3 – Are Your Labels Compliant?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

New Proposition 65 warning requirements applicable to cannabis and CBD products took effect on January 3, 2021, after a one-year enforcement grace period. Companies who manufacture, distribute, or sell at retail THC products...more

9 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