Advising on compliance and defending Proposition 65 claims
Advising on and defending Proposition 65 claims are a key aspect of our integrated product safety, compliance and recall practice. For decades, we’ve advised food, beverage, manufacturing and consumer product companies on Prop 65 matters, including high profile claims that threaten brands and nuisance claims that impact on profitability.
Officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, we help to resolve Prop 65 legal matters in line with your commercial goals. We provide counsel and advocacy to manufacturers, distributors and retailers across almost every product line, particularly in food and beverages.
Our involvement in delivering successful legal strategies for key litigations and settlements underlines our capability.
In the first instance, we can help you to reduce Prop 65 risk through strong compliance programs firmly grounded in the law, supporting and not hindering operational needs and industry requirements. This is about achieving compliance without disrupting your business. Programs can start in the R&D stage, with our team bringing experience throughout the development cycle.
Our advice draws on wide experience in areas including supply chain dynamics, negotiating and drafting terms for upstream suppliers, and downstream distributors.
“We couple confident advocacy with technical fluency in specific areas such as product chemistry, testing methodologies, and exposure analysis”
We also work to solve enforcement actions before they grow into serious problems or penalties. When complicated claims arise, we’re at the forefront of addressing such matters based on an up-to-date understanding of the Act’s workings, new plaintiff theories, and the expanding chemicals list. We also leverage strong industry relationships to your advantage. This can include liaising with the State Attorney General's Proposition 65 Enforcement Division lawyers.
We couple confident advocacy with technical fluency in specific areas such as product chemistry, testing methodologies, and exposure analysis. Our approach is to develop creative and cost-effective litigation defenses aimed at withdrawal of claims, a win in court, or favorable settlement.
Our work can include helping you to protect safe product lines from claimants who consistently look for new opportunities to attack, in areas such as dietary metals and acrylamide, furfuryl alcohol, and fluorinated compounds like PFOS and PFOA. We’re also well versed in plaintiff bar tactics that can involve private party litigation.
Awards and recognition
- Top ranked by Chambers USA for Nationwide Retail (2008-2022)
- Ranked by Legal 500 for Cannabis Law; Ranked by Chambers USA in this category
- Ranked by Chambers USA for Nationwide Food and Beverages: Regulatory and Litigation (2020-2022)
- Soft drink manufacturer regarding benzene formation from sodium benzoate.
- Coffee manufacturer and retailer regarding lead, arsenic and acrylamide in coffee drinks.
- Cookie and snack company regarding lead and cadmium in cocoa powder and chocolate.
- Soft drink flavoring company regarding 4-MEI content.
- Global food product manufacturer regarding lead and arsenic in protein powders.
- Global food product manufacturer regarding lead and arsenic in health snack bars.
- Major canned tuna distributor regarding its compliance plan for new regulations specific to BPA in canned goods.
- Chip manufacturer regarding acrylamide in potato chip products.
- Chip manufacturer regarding furfuryl alcohol in potato chip products.
- International baked goods chain regarding acrylamide in baked confections.
- Nationally distributed baking mix company regarding lead and arsenic in ginger and molasses content.
- Health drink company regarding cadmium in coconut-based juices.
- Green drink company regarding lead and cadmium in greed juices.
- Company developing a new protein powder product regarding Prop 65 requirements.
- Major brand personal care product company regarding numerous chemicals, among them lead, cadmium, DEA, cocamide DEA and others.
- Several electronic cigarette companies regarding nicotine, diacetyl, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
- Major US clothing retailers regarding contract terms for use with suppliers.
- One of the world's largest international retailers regarding a compliance program overhaul in anticipation of regulatory changes.
- Industry and trade groups in litigation against the State of California in Proposition 65 matters.
- Compliance advice to manufacturers of nut milk.
- Nationally distributed spice company regarding numerous notices alleging exposures to several chemicals.
- National home security company regarding lead content in padlocks.
- National personal care product company regarding silica in toothpaste.
- National personal care product company regarding heavy metals in medicated powder.
- National personal care product companies regarding benzophenone in sunscreen.
- National cosmetic companies regarding TiO2 in powder cosmetics.
- International pharmaceutical company for alleged contaminants and degradation products in OTC drugs.
- Nationally distributed food companies for heavy metals in protein supplements.
- Numerous other household name manufacturers, retailers and distributors of hundreds of products, from the automotive, chemical, electronics, consumer goods and construction industries, among others.