Proposition 65 – Changes That Will Impact the Cannabis Sector
Comment Deadline Approaching: Proposed Amendments Restricting Use of Prop 65 Short-Form Warnings
Cannabis Counsel Cast: Proposed Prop 65 Regulation Would Require Cannabis Products to Warn About Impacts on Child Behavior and Learning
Cannabis Counsel Cast: What Cannabis Companies Need to Know About California’s Prop. 65 (Even if They Aren’t in California)
Doing Business in California, Proposition 65, the California Green Chemical Initiative and the Rigid Plastic Packaging Regulations
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
The US District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 2, 2025 granted summary judgment in favor of the California Chamber of Commerce, holding that Proposition 65 warning requirements for acrylamide in food...more
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
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
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
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
On May 2, a federal district court in Sacramento permanently enjoined the Prop 65 warning for acrylamide in food, finding it to be unconstitutional. At issue in the case, California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. No....more
California recently amended its Proposition 65 regulations to add several additional alternative “safe harbor” warning labels for foods containing acrylamide, a naturally-occurring byproduct that can result during high-heat...more
On November 7, 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded in National Association of Wheat Growers v. Bonta, that California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65) cancer warning for glyphosate, a product primarily...more
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
California has approved a new, alternative “Safe Harbor” warning label for foods containing acrylamide, a naturally-occurring byproduct that occurs during high-heat cooking. Whether the new regulation moots the California...more
On September 16, 2022, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) submitted to the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) a revised Proposition 65 warning label requirement for the use of...more
Revisions to regs may be good news for purveyors of almonds, cookies and potato products, among other acrylamide-containing foods targeted by Proposition 65 plaintiffs. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment...more