Polsinelli’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) group is comprised of knowledgeable lawyers and professionals from our Environmental, Product Liability, and Mass Toxic Tort departments who have significant experience counseling and litigating matters involving this complex California statute.
Our team counsels and defends clients under both the “failure to warn” prong and the “discharge prohibition” set forth in the Prop 65 regulatory scheme. We also negotiate environmentally conscious and cost-effective settlements under the failure to warn provision for consumer product, occupational, and environmental exposures.
Our Prop 65 clients include Fortune 100 petrochemical companies, large retailers and vendors, transportation companies, and manufacturers in multiple industries including: sports and fitness products, food and dietary supplements, automotive materials, safety and home/business protection products, cleaning products, personal care and cosmetic products, and home-care appliance products and more. We also defend Prop 65 actions and advise clients in matters regarding listed chemicals including lead, crystalline silica, acrylamide, hexavalent chromium phthalates (BBP, DEHP, DINP), mercury, 1,3-dichloropropene, and diethanolamine.
Our Prop 65 experience includes up-to-date compliance consulting and training on regulatory changes including new statutory provisions that impact businesses manufacturing, selling or distributing products in California. We also counsel on indemnity and warranty issues arising out of vendor/manufacturer/distributor agreements as well as other business contracts that impact Prop 65 liability. Our consulting work includes preparation of standard operating and compliance procedures and training materials of warning requirements for commercial retailers, distributors, and business establishments located in California or doing business in California.
- Successfully resolved Proposition 65 “failure to warn” claims for manufacturers, suppliers and distributors of consumer products regarding Proposition 65 "failure to warn" claims arising from the sale and use of products including dental amalgam and orthodontic devices, intravenous feeding devices, cookware, roofing materials, dry cleaning fluid, bulk chemicals, firearms and bullets, tobacco, paints, art materials, toys, herbal supplements, food, and food packaging.
- Defending a Fortune 100 petrochemical company in a multi-party lawsuit under Prop 65’s “discharge prohibition” and B&P 17200 claims regarding purported leading underground storage tanks at gas stations all throughout the state of California.
- Succeeded in challenging a defect in a Prop 65 Notice that garnered a dismissal before the trial court.
- Assisted a prominent home product manufacturing company in obtaining a favorable Permissible Use Determination for certain products allotted by the Prop 65 Regulatory Agency
- Favorable resolution for Oil Company in a Prop 65 Discharge matter involving underground injection well and fracking claims. Developed regulatory and litigation defenses for pre-Complaint negotiations and injunctive relief assessment.
- Represented an agricultural commission and national federation association in a Proposition 65 action regarding food products.
- Represented companies, industry task forces, and associations in challenging Prop 65 Chemical Listing before the Cancer Identification and Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committees regarding chemicals such as PFOA, Bisphenol-A, PFOS, Chlorpyrifos, Chlorothalonil, and Triazines.