California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop 65) is one of the most onerous chemical control statutes in the nation. It prohibits businesses with 10 or more employees, including those that merely ship products into California, from:
- Exposing people in California to listed chemicals without a "clear and reasonable" warning; and
- Discharging or releasing listed chemicals to "sources of drinking water" in the state.
Over 900 chemicals are identified as carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or both, in the Prop 65 list that includes solvents, plasticizers, metals, additives, and/or ingredients in common household, commercial, and office products. Even naturally occurring chemicals found in food products are listed.
Enforcement and Penalties
Prop 65 allows for public and/or private enforcement. Plaintiffs need only to allege a violation has occurred and do not need to allege or show harm, injury, or damage to people, property, or the environment. Failure to comply with Prop 65 mandates is enforceable by penalties of up to $2,500 per day, per violation. In addition, plaintiffs often seek, and courts routinely grant, injunctive relief, including product reformulation to remove offending chemicals to ensure the alleged objectionable conduct is cured.
Bringing a Prop 65 action is relatively easy and lucrative for private plaintiffs and their counsel. Given the relative ease and potential payoff of bringing suit, businesses often face aggressive litigation tactics from plaintiffs' counsel.
If a chemical is listed, Prop 65 consumer product warning requirements apply unless the exposure to: a) a carcinogen will not pose a "significant risk of cancer", or b) a reproductive toxin will have "no observable effect" on people. These standards are exceptionally difficult to meet and, in litigation, are the defendant's burden to prove.
New Prop 65 warning regulations effective on August 30, 2018, can help insulate you from claims. However, we expect these recent changes will also increase the number of lawsuits brought by private parties and that resolving claims will be more complex. See OEHHA's website for the new warning regulations.
Notably, defendents' cost to resolve claims has been on the rise: 2015 payments totaled $17,828,941; 2016 payments were $21,561,113; 2017 payments were $25,656,500. This excludes defense counsel fees and the costs to businesses to resolve claims and comply.
Responding to a Prop 65 Lawsuit
Once a plaintiff establishes that a listed chemical is present, even at a very low level, the burden of proof, to demonstrate that an actionable exposure has not occurred, shifts to the defendant business. Because this is a difficult burden to meet, most Prop 65 cases are resolved through negotiated settlements. On occasion, however, there may be viable reasons to litigate.
2018 Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. Attorney advertising materials. These materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. This information is not intended to create an attorney-client or similar relationship. Please do not send us confidential information. Past successes cannot be an assurance of future success. Whether you need legal services and which lawyer you select are important decisions that should not be based solely upon these materials. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status. Contact: Walfrido J. Martinez, Managing Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037, 202.955.1500
Any settlement in a private Prop 65 enforcement action (other than voluntary dismissal) must be reported to the California Attorney General. Judicially-approved settlements with a private plaintiff can preclude other private parties from bringing the same claim.
Effective compliance strategies exist. Among other things, a covered business (effectively, every business in the chain of commerce) should assess whether it is exposing individuals to any Prop 65-listed chemical through products or environmental or occupational exposures.
Compliance with Prop 65's warning requirements fully insulates a company from liability, regardless of exposure levels. It is, therefore, critically important that a business receive expert assistance in drafting and implementing compliant warning programs. In most cases, "safe harbor" warnings can either be specific as to the chemical(s) involved or general. A number of other requirements apply to a warning's content and how the warning is communicated, especially since the new regulations that become operative in August 2018 are particularly detailed. In addition to warnings, companies may take other actions to protect against Prop 65 liability, including implementing legal protections such as contractual indemnities, certificate programs, and testing routines.
Compliance can also be achieved by demonstrating that an exposure will produce no significant risk of cancer or no observable effect on reproduction, even at minute exposure levels. However, because actionable exposures can occur even at trace concentrations, this can be difficult and expensive to prove.
Though Prop 65 does not apply to businesses with less than 10 employees, exempt businesses should consider providing compliant warnings or notifying their customers to avoid indemnity demands from retailers for products in their stores.