Innovative Defenses to Prop 65 Webinar Series: Part I

Couldn't make it? Sign up here and receive the link to listen on demand at a time that suits you.

On June 22, 2020, District Judge William B. Shubb delivered a substantial defeat to the state of California in the ongoing dispute over Proposition 65 cancer warnings for the herbicide glyphosate sending shock waves to the Proposition 65 program and other warning requirements.

In short, here are the key takeaways from the decisions that we'll discuss in further detail:

• For the first time, a court has held that the First Amendment bars California from requiring a Prop 65 warning on a product. 
• This is the first time a federal court blocked the Enforcement of a listing.
• Requiring companies to place Prop 65 warnings on products that are safe is unconstitutional and constitutes false and misleading commercial speech.
• The decision may offer a roadmap for other Constitutional challenges to Prop 65.
• It opens the door for challenges to the Prop 65 listings of other chemicals that California determines are hazardous, but the rest of the world does not. (To name a few: Acrylamide, Soluble Nickel, DINP, and DEHP (carcinogen)).

This program is the first in our series of webinars discussing innovative defenses to Prop 65. More information on additional programs in this series will be circulated in the coming weeks.

Steptoe Speakers:

• Carol Brophy, Senior Counsel
• Seth Goldberg, Partner
• Dennis Raglin, Partner

CLE Credit Available:

• New York: 1.5 hour of CLE credit
• California: 1.5 hour of CLE credit. No credit may be claimed for required CLE in legal ethics, recognition and elimination of bias in the legal profession, and competence issues.
• Illinois: 1.5 hour of General CLE credit. 

If seeking CLE credit in other jurisdictions, please make note in your registration form.