HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By


Cosmetics Firms Held “Hostage” By Prop 65 Litigators; Law Changes Possible

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

Proposition 65 lawsuits have increased for the cosmetics industry with the expiration of a grace period for new ingredients added to California’s list of substances linked to cancer or reproductive toxicity. Attorneys from Edwards Wildman offer perspective on the issue and its impact on industry.

You may also be interested in...

California’s Prop 65 Could Be Next Talc-Asbestos Battleground For Cosmetics

Lab testing expert Sean Fitzgerald says levels of asbestos he has detected in talc-containing cosmetics likely would expose consumers to the well-known carcinogen at levels above California’s Prop 65 safe harbor. There are questions as to Prop 65’s applicability as currently written, but there is definite interest among California attorneys and trial lawyers, he says.

Prop 65 Plaintiffs May Turn Sights On Cosmetics With Acrylamide Actions Halted

A federal court decision pending Ninth Circuit appeal, regarding acrylamide use in food, could signal a new defense option for companies facing Prop 65 claims, Greenberg Traurig attorney Will Wagner says. At the same time, it could lead to heavier plaintiff scrutiny of non-food categories such as cosmetics.

California Dreamin’: New York Exploring Prop 65-Like Program For Hazardous Chemical Labeling

If industry needs further incentive to drive federal cosmetics legislation with robust preemption, New York could have just provided it. The Consumer Chemical Awareness Act, proposed by Governor Cuomo, does not include any mention of a private right of action, but it would pave the way for hazardous chemical labeling à la California's Prop 65 while imposing extensive reporting requirements on industry.

Related Content




Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts