New Prop 65 Settlement Requirement Could Raise Costs, PR Issues For Firms
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
Product reformulations in the context of Prop 65 settlements will not be seen as conferring a public benefit unless it is demonstrated that expected exposure levels to listed chemicals are reduced, per new regulations adopted in California. The change may have been well-intended, but like other recent reforms to the Prop 65 program, it comes up short and may add to defendants’ costs and headaches, stakeholders say.
You may also be interested in...
California's Prop 65 Gets Pro-Biz Amendments, But Upshot Remains To Be Seen
California's AB 1583, signed into law in early October, was crafted to help even the playing field for defendants in Prop 65 litigation by promoting transparency in the factual bases that give rise to private enforcement actions and giving the Attorney General a greater role in separating cases with merit from those without. Industry groups and attorneys generally are taking a wait-and-see approach to the changes.
Prop 65 Private-Enforcement Reforms Won’t Disincentivize Bounty Hunting
Newly amended Prop 65 regulations seek to disincentivize private actions that would not result in significant public benefit, in part by imposing caps on “additional settlement payments.” Industry stakeholders predict, however, that plaintiffs and their counsel will simply seek increased attorney fees and/or greater civil penalties to cover the shortfall.
Prop 65 Private-Enforcement Reforms Won’t Disincentivize Bounty Hunting
Newly amended Prop 65 regulations seek to disincentivize private actions that would not result in significant public benefit, in part by imposing caps on “additional settlement payments.” Industry stakeholders predict, however, that plaintiffs and their counsel will simply seek increased attorney fees and/or greater civil penalties to cover the shortfall.