Beveridge & Diamond

Proposition 65 Practice

Beveridge & Diamond regularly counsels clients in California and worldwide on Proposition 65 (Prop 65) compliance questions, warning requirements, and advocacy.  In addition, we have litigated major Prop 65 matters, including People v. Superior Court (American Standard) (1996), 14 Cal.4th 294, one of the few Prop 65 cases to reach the California Supreme Court.

The lawyers in our California office are particularly well situated to advise on Prop 65 issues as well as other related regulatory programs that impact or relate to product supply chains, such as state material restrictions, California Safer Consumer Products regulations, product material disclosures (e.g., Washington State’s Children’s Safe Products Act), Canadian Environmental Protection Act Section 71 surveys, and the European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) and Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).  Beveridge & Diamond also regularly advises clients related to occupational exposures under Prop 65 and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Hazard Communication Standard.

Representative Matters
Representative Matters
  • Drafted contract terms and other protocols to minimize potential Prop 65 liability and assure Prop 65 requirements are communicated to and adhered to by suppliers.
  • Advised clients and directed toxicological consultants to develop appropriate exposure models for determining whether Prop 65 warnings are required.
  • Successfully settled enforcement actions for nominal sums including actions brought by frequent Prop 65 plaintiffs such as As You Sow, Mateel Environmental Foundation, and Center for Environmental Health, as well as cases brought by law firms known for their Prop 65 plaintiffs’ work such as The Chanler Group, Klamath Environmental Law Center, and Graham & Martin.
  • Counseled clients on the requirements for labels and other warnings for consumer products containing carcinogens or developmental/reproductive toxins. 
  • Represented the defendant in Mangini v. J.G. Durand (1994), 31 Cal.App.4th 214, a case which settled after a long trial and is still one of a handful of Prop 65 cases to be tried.  
  • Prepared comments on proposed chemical listings under various Prop 65 listing mechanisms.
  • Designed compliance strategies for clients related to emerging Prop 65 risks and requirements.
  • Reviewed clients’ product offerings to identify key Prop 65 compliance risks and provided advice to successfully address those risks.