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.