• PRO
  • Events
  • Awards
    • Client Choice New
    • Influencers
    Introducing Instruct Counsel
    The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • About
  • Blog Popular
  • Login
  • Register
  • PRO
  • Resources
    • Latest updates
    • Commentary
    • Q&A
    • Analysis
    • Practical resources
    • In-depth
    • FromCounsel
  • Research tools
    • Global research hub
    • Lexy
    • Primary sources
    • Scanner
    • Research reports
    • Instruct Counsel
  • Resources
  • Research tools
  • Who's Who Legal
    • Find an expert
    • Reports
    • Thought Leaders
    • Performance Index
    • Research methodology
    • Submissions
  • Who's Who Legal
  • Learn
    • All
    • Masterclasses
    • Videos
  • Learn
  • Awards
  • My newsfeed
  • Events
  • About
  • Blog
  • Popular
  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides

Analytics

Review your content's performance and reach.

  • Analytics dashboard
  • Top articles
  • Top authors
  • Who's reading?

Content Development

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons
  • Ideation

Client Intelligence

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre

Competitor Intelligence

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates
Lexology

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page.

Register

Governor signs limited amendment to Proposition 65

Sidley Austin LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

USA October 7 2013

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed an amendment to Proposition 65 allowing certain businesses (restaurant owners, parking garage owners, and those who own premises where smoking is permitted) a 14-day cure period to remedy alleged violations without being subject to civil penalties. This is only the second substantive amendment to Proposition 65 since its adoption by voters in 1986. Efforts at broader reforms have failed for the time being.

Proposition 65, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires companies doing business in California to provide a clear and reasonable warning before exposing persons to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm. A citizen enforcer seeking to enforce the law must provide a public notice 60 days prior to suit and can only proceed if a public prosecutor does not diligently pursue the claim.

Under the amendment, any person seeking to bring an enforcement action based on three specifically delineated exposure scenarios is prohibited from doing so if the recipient corrects the alleged violation, pays a $500 civil penalty per facility, and notifies the person seeking to bring the action that the violation has been cured, using a proof of compliance form, within 14-days of receipt of the 60-day notice letter.

Assemblyman Mark Gotto introduced the amendment in February 2013. The original bill, AB 227, applied this “cure period” to any exposure, but it was later amended and narrowed to cover only three specific exposure scenarios:

  • Exposures to alcoholic beverages that are sold on the entity’s premises for immediate consumption (e.g., bars and restaurants);
  • Exposures to tobacco smoke from non-employees on premises owned or operated by the entity where smoking is permitted; and
  • Exposures to Proposition 65 listed chemicals in engine exhaust inside a parking garage that is primarily intended for parking noncommercial vehicles.

The Amendment also imposes additional requirements on the citizen enforcers, including provision of a clear and reasonable description of the 14-day cure provisions. According to Gotto, the Amendment should reduce or eliminate “gotcha” or frivolous legal actions under Proposition 65 where plaintiffs are seeking damages for retail business violations, such as in restaurants, bars, and coffee shops when the warnings were not posted due to honest oversight. Note the Amendment does not protect persons who believe the law does not require a warning in their case and consequently refuse to provide a warning. The Amendment thus may well foster “over warning,” further diluting the effect of Proposition 65 warnings on consumers.

Businesses that do not fall within these three narrow categories remain subject to the civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation, as well as injunctions ordering violating entities to provide the requisite warnings, or to cure the violation.

Sidley Austin LLP - Judith M. Praitis and Amy P. Lally

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • USA
  • Environment & Climate Change
  • Sidley Austin LLP

Laws

  • California Proposition 65 (1986) (USA)

Popular articles from this firm

  1. U.S. SEC files litigated charges against broker-dealer and parent for misleading disclosures relating to information barriers *
  2. September Antitrust Bulletin: Top-of-Mind Global Antitrust Issues *
  3. Sidley Perspectives on M&A and Corporate Governance *
  4. The FTC’s amended complaint against Amazon employees raises serious policy concerns *
  5. SEC’s Cybersecurity Disclosure Rules Are Here. Is Your Company Ready to Comply? *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology
Primary sources PRO
  • Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) 1986 (California)

    • View in Primary sources

Related practical resources PRO

  • How-to guide How-to guide: Understanding environmental, social and governance (ESG)
  • How-to guide How-to guide: What general counsel (GC) need to know about environmental, social and governance (ESG)
  • How-to guide How-to guide: How to understand and implement the ‘E’ in environmental, social and governance (ESG)
View all

Related research hubs

  • USA
  • Environment & Climate Change
Back to Top
Resources
  • Daily newsfeed
  • Commentary
  • Q&A
  • Research hubs
  • Learn
  • In-depth
  • Lexy: AI search
  • Scanner
Who's Who Legal
  • Find an expert
  • Reports
  • Thought Leaders
  • Performance Index
  • Research methodology
  • Submissions
  • Instruct Counsel
More
  • About us
  • Legal Influencers
  • Firms
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
Legal
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
Contact
  • Contact
  • RSS feeds
  • Submissions
 
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn

© Copyright 2006 - 2023 Law Business Research

Law Business Research