Prop 65 Private-Enforcement Reforms Won’t Disincentivize Bounty Hunting
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
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.
You may also be interested in...
Natural Products Industry Needs More Time And Clarity For US Vaccine Mandate Compliance
NPA plans to comment on Occupational Safety and Health Administration vaccination mandate, asking for more time beyond 4 January compliance deadline and clarity on recordkeeping requirements.
Acetaminophen Under Scrutiny In California For Prop 65 Requirements
California extends deadline for data from cancer bioassays, epidemiological studies and genotoxicity tests for review of acetaminophen as a Prop 65 chemical due to carcinogenic potential. Deadline extended to May 29 in response to Consumer Healthcare Products Association request.
New Prop 65 Settlement Requirement Could Raise Costs, PR Issues For Firms
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.