Overview
Carol Brophy is a seasoned litigator representing clients in environmental law, administrative law, and state and federal litigation. She represents a wide range of companies in matters involving federal and California laws including Proposition 65, California Unfair Trade Practice (UCL), the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the California Clean Air Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and other state and local regulations.
Carol's background as both an engineer and an environmental assessor enables her to apply these skills to not only the legal aspects of compliance, but the scientific and technical aspects as well. She has extensive experience developing cost-effective compliance solutions for manufacturers and chemical processors, working both with clients’ in-house technical staff and consulting scientists. Carol also assists multinational companies in meeting the complex product importation, labeling, and formulation requirements imposed by US and international law. She provides assistance to clients in negotiating permit limits and defending compliance orders.
- California
- US District Court, Central District of California
- US District Court, Eastern District of California
- US District Court, Northern District of California
- US District Court, Southern District of California
- US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
- J.D., Southwestern University School of Law
- M.F.A., Yale University
- A.B., Stanford University
Areas of Work
Representative Matters
- Obtained multiple dismissals of putative class action claims in New York, Florida and California for manufacturer and several global retail clients alleging that labels on hand sanitizer products were allegedly misleading. Obtained de-certification of a certified class of hand sanitizer consumers, followed by a subsequent denial of attempted re-certification, and ultimately dismissal of all claims with prejudice. Courts have now found that, under controlling precedent in multiple states, the statement on a hand sanitizer product's label that it "kills 99% of germs*" is not misleading in light of information on the product's rear label.
- Environmental Research Center v. Aloe Vera, et al. - Obtained verdict after trial that foods and dietary supplements do not require Proposition 65 warnings. The verdict included an award of defense costs of $566,212, which is the largest and most significant defense cost award in the history of Proposition 65.
- Brimer v. Giftcraft - Obtained an adjudicated dismissal with prejudice on the eve of trial setting. Case involved Proposition 65 claims of lead and DEHP exposure in various consumer products. Giftcraft had developed dispositive expert and testing evidence that the exposure to the listed chemicals were well below the safe harbor values. In addition, Giftcraft was prepared to defend on statute of limitation and on the ground that the prosecution was in “bad faith” as the plaintiff was aware any alleged violation had been cured prior to filing the initial case.
- Held v. Amerisource Bergen - Obtained an adjudicated dismissal with prejudice of Proposition 65 claims that consumers were exposed to DINP in protective gloves. Dismissal was obtained after the court deemed the case complex at Ms. Brophy’s request, who was also seeking to consolidate over a dozen other lawsuits for trial. With the client out of the litigation, the other defendants settled with the plaintiff.
- Consumer Advocacy Group v. Big Lots, et al. - Obtained and adjudicated dismissal with prejudice prior to trial, with award of costs. The plaintiff dismissed after the chemical at issue—Diaminotoluene (mixed), used in cosmetics—was removed from the Proposition 65 list.
- Delisting of Diaminotoluene (Mixed) from the Proposition 65 list of carcinogenic chemicals. Delisting resulted from a Petition to Reconsider Listing submitted to California’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Delisting of a chemical is exceedingly rare, and to our knowledge this action was the first time a chemical has been administratively delisted based on a petition.
News & Publications
California Consumer Chemicals Law Blog
The End of Prop 65’s Half-Baked Acrylamide Cancer Warning Requirement
May 9, 2025
California Consumer Chemicals Law Blog
A Big Defense Trial Win for Prop 65 Food Cases
March 20, 2024
Press Releases
Steptoe Secures California Proposition 65 Win on Behalf of Client Gulf Pacific Rice
March 19, 2024
California Consumer Chemicals Law Blog
Senate Bill 54 on Target and Paving Road to “Waste-Free Future”
January 18, 2024
California Consumer Chemicals Law Blog
The End of Prop 65’s Short-Form Warning (Take Two)
October 31, 2023
California Consumer Chemicals Law Blog
Tip: Maybe Have a Regulation Before Regulating - Maine and the 2030 PFAS Ban
October 23, 2023
California Consumer Chemicals Law Blog
Assembly Bill 496 Lays the Regulations on Thick for the Cosmetics Industry
October 17, 2023
Resources
Events
Webinars
Innovative Defenses to Prop 65 Webinar Series: Part I
August 13, 2020
Speaker: Carol R. Brophy
Webinars
A Closer Look at Prop 65 Compliance in the Electronics Industry
October 10, 2018
Speaker: Carol R. Brophy
Webinars
Proposition 65 Compliance Roadmap
July 24, 2018
Speaker: Carol R. Brophy
Webinars
Prop 65 Webinar for Retailers: New Warning Regulations Ahead
July 11, 2018
Speaker: Carol R. Brophy
Webinars
California's New Proposition 65 Warning Regulations
June 26, 2018
Speaker: Carol R. Brophy
Previous Employment
- Environmental Manager, Rockwell
Professional Affiliations
- San Francisco Bar Association, Environmental Law Section
- San Francisco Bar Association, Litigation Section
- State Bar of California Association
- American Bar Association, Administrative Law Section
- American Bar Association, National Resources and the Environment Section