Cosmetics Firms To Phase Out Cocamide DEA Under Prop 65 Settlements
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
At a time when California regulators are considering amendments to Proposition 65 to stem a rising tide of related lawsuits, 14 personal-care manufacturers and retailers have settled suits filed by the Center for Environmental Health for violating the regulation and failing to properly warn consumers about the use of cocamide DEA in products.
You may also be interested in...
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.
Cosmetics E-tailers At Risk Amid Trending Auto-Renewal Class Actions
Businesses must provide proper disclosures to online consumers who enroll in auto-renewal purchasing or subscription programs or risk facing litigation in California and other states, according to Tucker Ellis attorney Ronie Schmelz. Birchbox is among companies that have been targeted for alleged violations of California law designed to protect consumers from being charged for continuous product shipments or ongoing services without their express consent and ability to cancel easily.
Brace For Impact: Lawsuit Challenges Prop 65 Safe Harbor For Lead
Environmental nonprofit contends there is no safe exposure level for lead in a lawsuit challenging the Prop 65 safe harbor for the substance, which has enabled many cosmetics firms to forgo warning labeling in California to date. Attorneys and regulatory experts discuss the suit’s potential large-scale impact while identifying diethanolamine as potentially the cosmetics industry’s next major headache under Prop 65.