The proliferation of Prop 65 enforcement continues in California. Private enforcers have issued over 2,600 notices of violation to date in 2026, while food, personal care, and apparel companies remain the primary enforcement targets.
Private enforcers have continued to target diethanolamine (DEA) in personal care products, including cosmetics, filing over 100 lawsuits alleging exposures to DEA in 2025 and continuing in 2026. A coordinated proceeding is underway in Alameda County Superior Court. Separately, the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) filed suit in federal court asserting that Prop 65 cancer warnings for DEA violate the First Amendment. In June, the Attorney General stipulated to judgment in favor of PCPC, conceding that compelled Prop 65 cancer warnings for DEA violate the First Amendment, and the District Court entered the judgment. This development is likely to put an end to the coordinated cases and any future DEA enforcement.
Claims relating to heavy metals in foods, beverages, and supplements remain widespread and are accelerating. In particular, there has been a significant increase in the number of suits alleging exposures to cadmium and lead, where the key issue is whether exposures to these chemicals may be averaged over time. A petition to coordinate has been granted, combining dozens of cadmium cases to determine the permissibility of averaging cadmium exposures. And the plaintiff bar has started to focus again on BPA in canned foods and beverages, as well as trace levels of PFOA in beverages.
Claims relating to aflatoxins in foods have also gained popularity in 2026. Aflatoxins are produced by fungi that thrive in hot and humid conditions, meaning they can appear across a variety of agricultural and food supply chains in ways that might be difficult to predict or control. They have been listed under Prop 65 as a carcinogen since the 1980s, yet the first notice of violation was not filed until August 2025. Enforcers have filed approximately 60 notices targeting a range of food products this year.
Hexavalent chromium and BPA claims also continue against textile and apparel companies, with industry settlements on both chemicals in place. But a subset of the BPA cases appear headed for a 2026 trial.
BPS, which only became penalty eligible under Prop 65 at the end of 2024, constituted nearly one-fifth of the total notices issued in 2025. These notices allege BPS in thermal products, such as receipt paper and thermal stickers/labels. Two enforcers have sued hundreds of companies on this topic, while an industry-wide resolution on this issue is nearly final.
On the regulatory front, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is evaluating whether to add the broader class of p,p’- bisphenol to the Prop 65 list. Between this and the significant enforcement activity concerning BPS/BPA, phenol regulation may continue to be an important issue to track under Prop 65 in 2026. Beyond the potential bisphenol listing, vinyl acetate was listed early last year, and the warning requirement took effect on Jan. 3, 2026. No notices of violation have been issued yet, but enforcement may be forthcoming.
Finally, a significant recent development has been the growing body of appellate decisions concerning the standard for evaluating notice defects in Prop 65 actions. In Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Pancho Villa’s, Inc., the Fourth Appellate District held that the Prop 65 pre-suit notice regulations are directory rather than mandatory, meaning that substantial compliance—rather than strict compliance—is the governing test. Several other appellate courts subsequently agreed with that decision.