Photo of Proposition 65
Proposition 65
Overview
Experience

If you manufacture, sell, or distribute any product directly or indirectly in California – through a distributor, online, or otherwise – you need to understand and comply with Prop 65. Sheppard Mullin has the expertise to help.

Prevention is Our Goal

Our main goal is to help you avoid government and private “bounty hunter” enforcement actions in the first place. We know that it is not always possible, but we can help you assess and implement a Prop 65 compliance program that will minimize the likelihood of an enforcement action. We also can audit your website to make sure you are following best practices.

Early Resolution

We will work with you to develop creative solutions to foster early resolution of claims, from pre-lawsuit negotiations to accelerated litigation and appeal of key issues.

Expertise

We have experience in all aspects of Prop 65, including compliance, response to notices of intent to sue, defense of lawsuits, and appeals. We routinely guide clients, both large and small, through the process of responding to 60-Day Notice letters, interfacing with the California Attorney General’s Prop 65 unit, and defending enforcement actions in court.

Why Sheppard Mullin

  • A long history of great results, including published appellate opinions
  • Experience with a multitude of products and industries
  • Geographic reach and the bench strength to get things done virtually anywhere and in any forum
  • Willingness to fight and take a case to trial or appeal if necessary

We are nimble and tough. We make it our business to understand your business, and we make sure your objectives guide our strategy and tactics.

Representative Experience

Warnings: We have successfully obtained summary judgment, dismissal, or settlement of, or counseled clients on, claims involving the following chemicals and products:

DEHP

Eyewear/glasses/ sunglasses

Makeup cases/bags

Gaming headsets

Halloween costumes

Children’s footwear

Photo albums

Fashion accessories

Distributors and retailers

Manufacturer

Importers and distributors

Manufacturer

Retailer

Retailer

Manufacturer

Acrylamide

Food

Food service industry representatives

Asbestos

Commercial property

Owners

Benzene

Propane cooking appliances

Manufacturer

Cadmium

Halloween costumes

Chocolate

Manufacturer

Manufacturer

Cocomide DEA/DEA

Pet shampoo

Manufacturer

Diesel exhaust and benzene

School buses

Parking garages

School bus operator

Parking garage owner

DBP

Halloween costumes

Children’s footwear

Manufacturer

Retailer

Ethylbenzene

Spray paint

Manufacturer

Formaldehyde

Particle board and wood floor coverings

Plant emissions

Halloween costumes

Manufacturers

Owner of industrial facility

Manufacturer

Lead

Battery Recycler

Cookware

Computer equipment

Carpet/artificial turf

Food

Industrial emmisions

Solder

Tableware, crystal products, candle holders, terrariums, picture frames, light bulbs, cosmetics

Garden tools and hose accessories

Shoes

Manufacturer

Manufacturer

Manufacturer

Manufacturer

Manufacturer

Manufacturer

Manufacturer

Retailer

Manufacturer

Retailer

Methylene Chloride

Furniture

Furniture refinisher

Mercury / Methyl Mercury

Food

Restaurant chains

Propoxur

Pet flea-prevention collars

Manufacturer

Silica

Wall board

Manufacturer

TDCPP

Acoustic and soundproofing foam

Retailer

Titanium dioxide (airborne, unbound particles of respirable size)

Powdered makeup

Manufacturer/retailer

Toluene

Furniture polish

Nail polish

Shutters

Manufacturer/distributor

Manufacturer

Manufacturer


Discharge to soil or water: We have successfully defended lawsuits alleging discharges of chemicals to soil or water in violation of Prop 65 and subsequent appeals, including:

  • Represented a major oil company in successful litigation and appeal of lawsuit seeking over $62 million in civil penalties for alleged releases of Proposition 65 chemicals from gasoline service stations. Resulted in landmark environmental decision, Consumer Advocacy Group v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 104 Cal. App. 4th 438 (2002), where California Court of Appeal held that “passive migration” or “continued presence” of chemicals in soil or water did not constitute a “discharge or release” under Proposition 65.
  • Represented a major oil company in lawsuits filed by California Attorney General and Solano County District Attorney seeking injunction and civil penalties for alleged releases of Proposition 65 chemicals from a refinery and a marketing terminal.
  • Represented a major oil company in lawsuit seeking injunction and civil penalties for alleged releases and threatened releases of Proposition 65 chemicals and alleged environmental exposures from former landfill.