One week after a San Francisco jury decided against Monsanto and awarded a plaintiff $289 million due to the alleged exposure that caused his cancer, the California Supreme Court refused to hear any further challenges by Monsanto as to whether California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) properly relied upon a 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer report in determining that glyphosate is a carcinogen and therefore products containing it are subject to Prop 65 warnings. Continue Reading California Supreme Court Ends Glyphosate Debate, for the Time Being
Dan Herling is a Member in the firm and practices in the San Francisco office. His practice is focused on product liability issues relating to pharmaceuticals and medical devices, commercial litigation, and antitrust matters. His trial work also encompasses class actions, intellectual property litigation, patent infringement, and professional liability. He advises international companies in the pharmaceutical, medical device, food, over-the-counter drugs, homeopathic remedies, and dietary supplement industries. He has served as defense counsel in over 3,000 product liability cases and represented companies in both state and federal courts in California and the US.
On July 1, 2018, California’s revised Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq., goes into effect.
The updated law requires e-commerce sellers, doing business in California, to allow online cancellation of auto-renewing memberships or recurring purchases that were initiated online. Continue Reading Stricter Automatic Renewal Law in California Commences July 1, 2018
Recently, a federal judge sitting in the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), for the first time, refused to require a manufacturer to place a Prop 65 warning on its product based on a finding that the requirement would violate the company’s First Amendment rights. We have been following this developing issue for some time. (See prior posts here, here, and here.) Continue Reading First Amendment Still Trumps Prop 65
Fresh off a victory in the CA primary, California Attorney General Xavier Bacerra filed suit on June 7, 2018 against Nutraceutical Corporation of Park City, Utah and Graceleigh, Inc. dba Sammy’s Milk of Newport Beach, CA, alleging violations of California’s Proposition 65 and California’s consumer protection laws. Continue Reading California AG Leads Attack on Lead in Infant Formula
As this space has addressed before (see here and here), the California Transparency in Supply Chain Act (Civ. Code section 1714.43), enacted in 2010, requires large retailers and manufacturers (those with worldwide sales in excess of $100 million) doing business in California to disclose on their websites their efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from their direct supply chain for tangible goods offered for sale.
In Hodsdon v. Mars, a putative class action, the plaintiff alleged that this California consumer protection law required Mars, Inc. (of Mars Chocolate fame) to disclose on its products’ labels that the products’ supply chains may involve slave labor. The trial judge dismissed the complaint, and on June 4, 2018 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the California consumer protection laws do not obligate Mars to label its goods as possibly being produced by child or slave labor. The court explained that, in the absence of any affirmative misrepresentations by the manufacturer, manufacturers do not have a duty to disclose the labor practices in question, even though they are reprehensible, because they are not physical defects that affect the central function of the chocolate products. Continue Reading Where No Misrepresentation, Ninth Circuit Does Not Require Labels Disclosing Slave Labor
As this space has discussed on several occasions, there are many issues with California’s Prop 65 (check out some of my prior posts about unintended consequences here and here). In full disclosure, most of the issues I discuss here are presented from the viewpoint of businesses that find themselves at odds with citizen enforcers or their counsel, the language of the Proposition, and/or the California courts’ interpretation of that language.
However, Prop 65, otherwise known as California’s toxic substance warning law, appears to be the subject of equal opportunity complaining. Continue Reading Prop 65: GET THE LEAD OUT!
A recent Federal Court decision on the issue of whether to grant a preliminary injunction in the ongoing saga of the appropriateness of adding the pesticide Glyphosate to the CA Prop 65 list (see prior posts, here and here) has become the grist for the “Fake News” phenomenon. More specifically, Momsacrossamerica.org issued a press release on February 28, 2018 entitled “Judge Says Public Doesn’t Need Cancer Warning.”
However, a quick scan of the decision issued on February 26th reveals that the judge did no such thing. Continue Reading Prop 65 Preliminary Injunction and “Fake News”
Much of the recent discussion regarding Prop 65 has been focused on the regulatory changes going into effect in August of 2018. And that makes sense since there will be significant changes to the warnings, responsibility, and labeling obligations on product websites. There is, however, other activity that may result in a more profound change as to which chemicals require Prop 65 warnings. As we have discussed in the past (see prior post here), there has been litigation in California state court addressing the appropriateness of adding the pesticide ingredient Glyphosate to the Prop 65 list. Continue Reading A Federal Court Gets Opportunity to Weigh In on Prop 65 With a Little Help from Some Friends
California’s Safe Drinking Water & Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (affectionately known as “Proposition 65”) has long been the subject of discussion, both pro and con. Much of the conversation is on various issues surrounding the enforcement of Proposition 65 (for example, see a prior post here). In March 2017, a California trial court in Monsanto Co. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), No. 16-CE CG 00183, addressed a much more basic issue: should a chemical – here Glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s Round-Up® product – even be on Prop 65’s list of cancer-causing chemicals? Continue Reading California’s Prop 65: More Form Over Substance
It has recently been reported that President Donald Trump is looking for ways to defend American-made products by certifying legitimate U.S. goods and aggressively going after imported products unfairly sporting the “Made in America” label, the White House said on July 18, 2017. President Trump announced that his administration would crack down on “predatory online sales of foreign goods” that are hurting U.S. retailers. According to a senior official, the United States loses about $300 billion a year to theft of intellectual property ranging from semiconductors to jeans. In March of this year, the President signed an executive order that gave customs officials more authority to stop pirated and counterfeit items.
This space has addressed the issues, both regulatory and litigation, relating to “Made in America” claims (see here, here, and here). Based on the Administration’s comments, the White House plans to work with the private sector on the new certification and verification system rather than create new regulations or spend taxpayer money. Continue Reading The Turn of the “Made in America” Claim Enforcement