22 Comments

1. Jag  •  Jun 30, 2009 @12:18 pm
   

   Prop 65 compliance has become a major pain in the ass. The provision that allows a private right of action has created a cottage industry for plaintiff lawyers to sue thousands of companies (mine included). Hey, maybe they can join up with SueEasy?

2. Ken  •  Jun 30, 2009 @1:28 pm
   

   And so lawyers will get an entirely new array of companies to sue. FTW!

3. Jag  •  Jun 30, 2009 @3:43 pm
   

   All this regulation is increasing the cost of doing business in CA for many businesses. I know Dell charges CA resident a “Green Tax” surcharge at least on monitors.

   We segregate some of our products that go to CA so we can slap a Prop 65 warning on the ones that contain certain ingredients. We also contemplated petitioning to have some of the ingredients removed from the Prop 65 ‘known carcinogen list’ but the cost was prohibitive. It was just cheaper to comply than fight it.

   The upside is that now many companies in the dietary supplement industry require all products to comply with Prop 65 standards for toxins (lead levels, etc.) which has actually had a beneficial impact on the industry.

4. Transplanted Lawyer  •  Jun 30, 2009 @3:46 pm
   

   Functionally every consumer retailer and every dentist in the state now dispenses known-to-the-state-of-california-to-cause-cancer chemicals to an unsuspecting public — and, for punitive damage purposes, actually says that there are health benefits to consuming them. Let’s partner up, Popehat lawyers, and sue every grocery store, Rite-Aid, and Walgreen’s in the state from San Ysidro to Arcata that dares to sell toothpaste after this. When we’re all walking around with stinky breath and rotten teeth, we’ll be thrilled that our risk of cancer will be negligibly lower and we, at least, will have enough money to periodically fly down to Mexico and smuggle back contraband Colgate.

5. Bruce  •  Jun 30, 2009 @4:08 pm
   

   We have some other nutcases locally on this issue too:
   http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25673894-2862,00.html

   This is more likely to be an extremist hippy type making the threats rather than a right wing death beast. But who knows – lunacy is more than just a left vs right thing. Flouridation may be something that unites us for bipartisan lunacy.

6. Ken  •  Jun 30, 2009 @4:28 pm
   

   Let’s partner up, Popehat lawyers, and sue every grocery store, Rite-Aid, and Walgreen’s in the state from San Ysidro to Arcata that dares to sell toothpaste after this.

   I have a modified suggestion. You sue them. I’ll represent them, at $750 an hour. I think you should designate experts for deposition on St. John, then in the Lake District, then on the French Riviera, please. In about two years we’ll reach a settlement and split it all.

7. mojo  •  Jul 1, 2009 @8:48 am
   

   “This product contains ingredients which are known to cause cancer IN RATS.”

   Truth in advertising.

8. Scott Jacobs  •  Jul 1, 2009 @10:46 pm
   

   Finally, General Ripper’s dream will be realized…

9. Doug  •  Jul 3, 2009 @8:26 am
   

   More evidence that the State of California should be broken up into at least 10 different states of disarray.

10. ted  •  Jul 9, 2009 @9:38 pm
    

    we just received a “60 day intent to sue” notice regarding prop 65. NOW WHAT? i’ve never heard of the law until today and now i know much considering all the articles i’ve read but i still dont know what to do next? Is there something we can do proactively to avoid this? My office printed out the nec labels and now everything leaving our shipping desk is labeled.

    I’ve read that companies with less than 10 employees are exempt, we have 8, does this mean i can breathe easy?

11. Patrick  •  Jul 10, 2009 @4:34 am
    

    We can’t give you legal advice over a blog Ted. You should consult an attorney in California, and do so immediately.

12. ted  •  Jul 10, 2009 @3:26 pm
    

    Well I’m not looking for legal advice nor am i going to hire attorney, i try to stay away from societal scourge, the more i read on this the more its confirmed that Prop 65 is only good for attorneys and does nothing for whom the law was suppose to protect. Hiring an attorney only perpetuate the problem as giving a dollar to a beggar. My reason for posting was to learn what others have done when the extortionists came a calling as they have in my case.

13. Ken  •  Jul 10, 2009 @3:29 pm
    

    So, Ted, you are responding to a post written by an attorney, on a blog the most prominent two writers of which are attorneys, demanding that we answer legal questions about a legal situation, but you want to make sure we know that we are societal scourges and beggars?

    Let me know how that works out for you.

14. ted  •  Jul 10, 2009 @3:51 pm
    

    I didn’t realize this was a pro attorney site. My apologies. I have a great disdain for attorneys for i feel they do far more harm than good, as such in my case here. Since reading the 60 day notice, I’ve been doing my research and I thought this was a forum talking about the problems of prop 65 for business owners and what one could do for themselves. But as always, attorneys do only for attorneys and the first suggestion is always to “hire one”. I will document my experience from start to finish, including my discussion here, and when it’s over, I will publish it with hopes it will help others being attacked and I’ll do it for free.

    Thank you for your time gentleman, it’s a wonder you can be at peace with yourselves.

15. Patrick  •  Jul 10, 2009 @3:57 pm
    

    Sorry to disappoint you ted. Sites written by attorneys, unfortunately, do tend to be “pro attorney.”

    God bless!

16. ted  •  Jul 10, 2009 @4:19 pm
    

    shame on me for not reading the detais but i guess this is how i got in this mess to begin within, not knowing the rules is no excuse as you all are keenly aware.

    I’m just upset that after 55 years of doing business a ‘bounty hunter’ has singled me out to profit from and we were caught with our pants down. Why not just a warning and a threat of what could happen if we didnt comply?

17. Patrick  •  Jul 10, 2009 @5:23 pm
    

    Again ted, an attorney might be able to help you. I mean that in the friendliest way. We’re defense attorneys. We sympathize.

    But don’t reply with another jeremiad, please. This is our site. It’s our home, in internet terms. When you visit friends, neighbors, or strangers in their homes, we’re sure you don’t insult them. So why would you do that to us?

    Please treat us with the same courtesy you’d treat anyone who had invited you into their home. You seem to be a decent fellow. Keep it up.

    Again, God bless.

18. Transplanted Lawyer  •  Jul 10, 2009 @5:38 pm
    

    Ted, being mad at attorneys in general isn’t going to help you. You have a problem — one that is not of your own making, one that in all probability you do not deserve, but you have it anyway.

    It’s like cancer. No one deserves to have cancer. But you can’t be mad at the world if you get it. When you get cancer, you need a doctor. When you get a threat of a lawsuit, you need a lawyer. Go get a lawyer of your own, one that you know will be on your side. Believe me, there are plenty who would be willing to help you.

    But the strategy of ignoring the threat letter becuase you don’t feel like you deserve to be sued is not a good one. We call this the “ostrich strategy” — sticking your head in the sand so you can’t see the threat doesn’t mean the threat is really going away. Don’t be an ostrich. Go talk to a lawyer. That is all I have to say on this subject.

19. Ken  •  Jul 10, 2009 @7:58 pm
    

    Ted, permit me to treat you with what you may not recognize as respect, but which is actually the most important type of respect: I’m going to be blunt with you.

    Since reading the 60 day notice, I’ve been doing my research and I thought this was a forum talking about the problems of prop 65 for business owners and what one could do for themselves.

    Ted, this sentence does not inspire confidence. Anyone who looks at this blog with even the smallest amount of due diligence will immediately recognize that it is not a “forum for talking about the problems of prop 65 for business.” You did not exercise due diligence. You did not read critically. You did not, as far as I can tell, read more than a tiny slice of the original post.

    Are you going to do better when you read the notice sent to you, and when you research how to respond to it?

    But as always, attorneys do only for attorneys and the first suggestion is always to “hire one”.

    It’s true that attorneys tend to recommend that people seeking advice hire attorneys, Ted. Similarly, if you went to a web site where doctors hung out and asked them what that lump in your wife’s breast is, they probably wouldn’t recommend a course of treatment in a post on the internet. They’d tell you to go check it out. If you went to a site where chemical engineers hang out and asked them what the manufacturing plant next door is dumping into the river based on its color, taste, and smell, they’d tell you to go consult a professional. If you got an IRS audit notice and asked a board of tax professionals how to address it, they’d tell you to go consult a professional. If you ask here for advice about Prop 65 cases, we’d tell you to go to a professional, because none of us do that work and because we can’t give advice over the internet with dramatically limited information even if we did. Hell, Ted, if you showed up at my office tomorrow and handed me $20,000 in cash to handle your prop 65 case, I’d send you away, because I don’t do that type of law, and it would be reckless of me to try.

    You can choose to believe that’s because all those professionals are crooks looking to support other people in their profession. Or you could maybe conclude that perhaps — just perhaps — professionals recognize that their work isn’t something that can be done in a handful of lines on a post on the internet.

    I don’t know what you do for a living, Ted. But tell me this — suppose I told you that tomorrow I could start doing your job just as well as you do, without your training or years of experience. Wouldn’t you think that made me a presumptuous ass?

20. ted  •  Jul 12, 2009 @7:48 pm
    

    I apologize for my rudeness, I was angry then, I’m still angry, but my anger is only towards this bounty hunter who’s looking to take food from my family but time has made me calmer and able to see a bit more clearer.

    Although I’m still not hiring an attorney, I’m just sending a letter to the bounty hunter (attorney) directly and thanking him for making me aware of this ‘public health’ law and explaining the corrections we have made in our labeling procedures so this will never happen again. If I get sued, I have insurance for that and let those crooks pay the plaintiff attorney crooks and end of story.

    Thank you for treating me with a great deal of respect, being you are defense attorneys I can see why you would.

    Ted

21. Ken  •  Jul 12, 2009 @8:59 pm
    

    Ted, unfortunately, the types of lawyers who send out Prop 65 notices don’t, as a rule, give a shit about actually improving labeling or safety or anything. They care about shaking you down for money.

22. ted  •  Jul 13, 2009 @7:57 am
    

    That is why I was so furious!

    Why in good conscious would a state law allow such a thing? I thought the idea of this prop is to improve labeling so the consumer can be better informed. I would think damages would have to be proved before anyone could collect.

    Our products are not sold to the consumer directly, instead they are sold to industrial distributors who sell to industry, factories, and in some cases, the consumer who uses our product in a private repair or machine shop. No one eats our product and in no way could ingest it. It just didn’t have the prop 65 label on it. I’ll let you all know the outcome 60 days from now.

Leave a Reply