Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Proposition 65

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Council for Educ. & Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp., 84 Cal. App. 5th 879 (2022)

The trial court properly denied plaintiff attorney fees under CCP 1021.5 when it obtained a preliminary injunction requiring Prop. 65 warnings on coffee but later lost on summary judgment.  The temporary warnings did not confer any substantial benefit on the general public.  The Coffee Regulation later adopted by the agency responsible for Prop. 65 showed that coffee poses no significant… Read More

Council for Educ. & Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp., 84 Cal. App. 5th 879 (2022)

During this litigation about whether Prop. 65 requires warnings about the carcinogen acrylamide in coffee, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment issued a legislative regulation stating that chemicals known to be included in coffee created by the process of roasting or brewing coffee do not pose a significant risk of cancer.  (27 CCR 25704.)  The trial court correctly granted… Read More

Envtl. Health Advocates, Inc. v. Sream, Inc., 83 Cal. App. 5th 721 (2022)

The trial court correctly granted the defendant water pipe (hookah) manufacturer judgment on the pleadings against plaintiff's claim that it violated Prop. 65 by failing to warn that if used to smoke marijuana, the hookah would expose the smoker to marijuana smoke that contains carcinogens.  The opinion follows regulations implementing Prop. 65 in holding that the proposition covers only products… Read More

Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Council for Educ. & Rsch. on Toxics, No. 21-15745, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6952 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2022)

This decision affirms a preliminary injunction issued against the California Attorney General and private parties preventing them from filing suit under Prop. 65 to require food manufacturers to give the standard Prop. 65 warning about acrylamide being a chemical supposedly "known" to cause cancer.  Under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), the compelled speech (the required… Read More