California's Proposition 65


Sidley’s Environmental practice focuses on providing clients with practical, workable solutions in connection with enforcementcompliance and litigation under California’s Proposition 65. Our lawyers counsel companies on compliance with Proposition 65’s warning obligations and defend recipients of 60-day notice letters. We also assist purchasers in identifying and evaluating Proposition 65 liabilities and risks during due diligence, including supply chain management challenges, and in creating post-acquisition compliance programs.

Our lawyers bring value to our clients in the following ways:

  • We defend litigation and counsel a wide variety of businesses on whether warning duties are triggered upon use of their consumer products, including foods and beverages, vitamins and other dietary supplements, textiles, jewelry, toys, cosmetics, personal care products and plastics and novelties alleged to contain lead, phthalates or other listed chemicals.
  • We counsel clients on worker disclosures under Cal-OSHA and advise on eliminating listed chemical usage to sunset employee warning obligations.
  • We advise clients on whether warning duties apply to exposures in residential or commercial buildings that they own or occupy, including sites under remediation.
  • We have represented clients in litigation involving Proposition 65 “area warnings,” including those concerning ethylene oxide and diesel engine exhaust from stationary or mobile sources.
  • We counsel clients on the chemical listing process, including whether to challenging listings, submit technical or legal comments, seek formal policy guidance, vet agency or private development of calculated “no significant risk” or “maximum allowable dose” levels and on related administrative, rule-making challenges under Proposition 65.

Our work; representative matters

The firm received favorable rulings in two matters before the California Courts of Appeal even though reported judicial decisions on Proposition 65 cases are relatively rare. Additionally, Sidley lawyers secured a defense verdict in a bifurcated trial resolving the legal issue of whether all dietary supplements are “foods” for purposes of Proposition 65. We also have negotiated some of the most innovative warning schemes and consent judgments entered under Proposition 65, including the first Attorney General-approved internet warning program and, for certain dietary supplements, the first product based naturally occurring allowances.

Our team

Our Environmental lawyers have the knowledge and experience to provide clients with customized solutions. As Proposition 65 evolves, we advise clients on the current listing process, monitor chemicals and provide updates on new consent judgments and other developments of potential concern.

Sidley’s Environmental practice focuses on providing clients with practical, workable solutions in connection with enforcementcompliance and litigation under California’s Proposition 65. Our lawyers counsel companies on compliance with Proposition 65’s warning obligations and defend recipients of 60-day notice letters. We also assist purchasers in identifying and evaluating Proposition 65 liabilities and risks during due diligence, including supply chain management challenges, and in creating post-acquisition compliance programs.

Our lawyers bring value to our clients in the following ways:

  • We defend litigation and counsel a wide variety of businesses on whether warning duties are triggered upon use of their consumer products, including foods and beverages, vitamins and other dietary supplements, textiles, jewelry, toys, cosmetics, personal care products and plastics and novelties alleged to contain lead, phthalates or other listed chemicals.
  • We counsel clients on worker disclosures under Cal-OSHA and advise on eliminating listed chemical usage to sunset employee warning obligations.
  • We advise clients on whether warning duties apply to exposures in residential or commercial buildings that they own or occupy, including sites under remediation.
  • We have represented clients in litigation involving Proposition 65 “area warnings,” including those concerning ethylene oxide and diesel engine exhaust from stationary or mobile sources.
  • We counsel clients on the chemical listing process, including whether to challenging listings, submit technical or legal comments, seek formal policy guidance, vet agency or private development of calculated “no significant risk” or “maximum allowable dose” levels and on related administrative, rule-making challenges under Proposition 65.

Our work; representative matters

The firm received favorable rulings in two matters before the California Courts of Appeal even though reported judicial decisions on Proposition 65 cases are relatively rare. Additionally, Sidley lawyers secured a defense verdict in a bifurcated trial resolving the legal issue of whether all dietary supplements are “foods” for purposes of Proposition 65. We also have negotiated some of the most innovative warning schemes and consent judgments entered under Proposition 65, including the first Attorney General-approved internet warning program and, for certain dietary supplements, the first product based naturally occurring allowances.

Our team

Our Environmental lawyers have the knowledge and experience to provide clients with customized solutions. As Proposition 65 evolves, we advise clients on the current listing process, monitor chemicals and provide updates on new consent judgments and other developments of potential concern.

News & Insights