A California appeals court affirmed a dismissal of a class action on May 9 against winemakers that alleged they failed to warn of arsenic in their wines pursuant to Proposition 65 (Prop 65). Prop 65 is California law that requires warnings for consumer products containing substances that may cause cancer or birth defects. In Doris Charles et al. v. Sutter Home Winery Inc. et al., plaintiffs alleged that wine produced by several wine manufacturers contained unsafe levels of arsenic and wine bottles should therefore contain a warning regarding arsenic. They argued such despite the fact the defendants provided the legally mandated warning for alcoholic beverages: “WARNING: Drinking Distilled Spirits, Beer, Coolers, Wine and Other Alcoholic Beverages May Increase Cancer Risk, and, During Pregnancy, Can Cause Birth Defects.” The California Court of Appeals, Second District, found that it is true that under Prop 65, alcohol must have a warning that it may increase cancer risk and birth defects. However, the wine manufacturers are not required to warn of other potentially dangerous chemicals, as Prop 65 does not require disclosure of specific chemical ingredients in alcoholic beverages. The alcoholic beverage warning alerting customers that consuming the wine could result in cancer and reproductive harm made an additional arsenic warning unnecessary.
- How-to guide How-to guide: How to avoid liability for defective products in supply of goods agreements (USA)
- Checklist Checklist: Competition law compliance (EU) Recently updated
- Checklist Checklist: Assessing whether standard terms and conditions should be used for the supply of goods and services (USA)