Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 NOVEMBER 2023

California Fiddles With Prop 65 Short-Form Warnings

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Contributor
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

About Kelley Drye We’re focused—in key areas of the law and on the nuances of each matter—to help...

View firm profile
Explore more from Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Whether Nero actually fiddled while Rome burned is historically questionable, though it was undoubtedly true that the mad emperor focused on the trivial during a time of emergency.

United StatesEnvironment

Whether Nero actually fiddled while Rome burned is historically questionable, though it was undoubtedly true that the mad emperor focused on the trivial during a time of emergency. California leaves no such room for historians to quibble as the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) takes a third stab in recent years at tinkering with the "short form" warning provisions of Prop 65, justifying the effort in part by asserting that "[n]ot requiring a specific chemical to be included in the short-form warning has led to its over-use, and many businesses are using the short-form warning prophylactically because it protects from potential litigation." Meanwhile, the true cause of "over-warning" is continually ignored by OEHHA: the ridiculous ease of bringing a Prop 65 notice of violation and forcing companies into expensive litigation, even when, in many cases, no such warning was required. (A topic about which we have a lot more to say, most recently with

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from