- Emergency Consultation Services
- Risk Management Services
- Who We Are
- Our People
- What We Do
- Why We Are Different
- What’s New
- Where We Are
By: Robyn Flegal
In May 2018, the California Court of Appeals refused to revive a class action lawsuit claiming wines made by fifteen winemakers should contain an arsenic warning. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2015, alleging that these wines exposed consumers to arsenic in violation of California law. The panel of the California Court of Appeals held that the alcoholic beverage warning on these wines sufficiently notified customers about the potential risks associated with consuming the wine, despite the lack of a specific arsenic warning.
California’s Proposition 65—the safe drinking water and toxic enforcement act of 1986—protects the state’s drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harms. Prop 65 requires businesses to disclose exposures to such chemicals to Californians.
The appeals court held that the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment requires companies to disclose one chemical for each health risk. Thus, because the alcoholic beverage warning alerted customers that wine could result in cancer and reproductive harm, the additional arsenic warning was unnecessary. The failure to provide a separate arsenic warning was therefore not a violation of the regulations.
Companies doing business in California should be aware of Proposition 65 and the labeling and disclosure requirements thereunder. For more information, please contact Robyn Flegal at email@example.com or any of FMG’s Commercial Litigation Professionals.