Greenberg Traurig provides experienced and effective advocacy in all types of Proposition 65 matters, most of which have political as well as legal and financial components.

Greenberg Traurig has experience working with OEHHA, the attorney general's office, the governor's office and the few consultants who interpret the science used in both the listing process and enforcement actions.

Greenberg Traurig can advise clients when:

  • California proposes to place a chemical on the state's list of known carcinogens and reproductive toxicants
  • You stand accused of discharging a listed chemical into state waters or of exposing Californians to a listed chemical without warning
  • You have products that should be evaluated for compliance with Proposition 65 warning requirements

Our attorneys and governmental affairs professionals have been intimately involved with Proposition 65 since the statute was codified in 1986.

  • Participated in the first meeting to develop Proposition 65 regulations and in every policy proceeding since
  • Lobbied the California State Legislature to adopt a rational safety factor for reproductive toxicants
  • Monitored every meeting of the advisory panels and identification committees that decide to list chemicals
  • Represented clients in the workshops that prioritized chemicals for the listing process
  • Worked with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to ensure fair risk assessments
  • Helped develop applications to OEHHA for determinations that certain uses of listed chemicals are safe without a warning
  • Defended numerous enforcement actions by the attorney general and private plaintiffs to favorable resolutions
  • Won important limitations from the California Supreme Court on warning requirements being enforced by the state

Greenberg Traurig has experience in listing and enforcement actions with a wide range of chemicals

  • 2,4-D Compounds
  • Androstenedione
  • Arsenic
  • Acrylamide
  • DEA
  • Lead
  • Mercury
  • MTBE
  • Perchlorate
  • Phthalates
  • Soots, Tars and Oils
  • Styrene
  • Toluene
  • Many Others

Enforcement Actions

  • Defended businesses and trade groups in actions targeting industries or consumer products, including food and pharmaceuticals
  • Defeated attempts to apply Proposition 65 to unlisted chemicals that are precursors to listed chemicals occurring naturally in the body
  • Prevailed in the California Supreme Court on federal preemption of Proposition 65 warning requirements for some FDA-regulated products
  • Negotiated with the attorney general to set the naturally occurring level of lead in eight mineral supplements
  • Obtained a defense verdict in a lawsuit brought by the California Attorney General and a private plaintiff against canned tuna manufacturers; plaintiffs alleged failure to warn consumers about mercury in canned tuna and sought $50 million in penalties; after a 27-day trial, the San Francisco Superior Court issued a 118-page ruling which found for the defense on every issue presented

Compliance Issues 

  • Worked with many industry scientists and compliance officers to identify Proposition 65 liabilities and develop realistic strategies to address them

Listing process

  • Marshaled legal argument and scientific data to convince OEHHA and its identification committees that certain chemicals should not be listed as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants

Rulemaking 

  • Petitioned OEHHA to adopt a regulation that gave medical device manufacturers a safe-harbor procedure for providing a Proposition 65 warning