The trial court found the defendants did not violate Prop 65 because their products did not expose consumers to lead levels above the Prop 65 safe harbor limit. By holding that the defendants’ exposure analysis methodology was more appropriate than the competing methodology put forth by Environmental Law Foundation, the Court provided a much-needed road map for proving the safe harbor defense. If the Beech-Nut analysis is upheld, defendants will likely be more willing and able to show their products do not expose consumer to Prop 65 chemicals above the allowable levels.
Environmental Law Foundation’s opening brief is due November 19. Because of the potential impact on future Prop 65 litigation, we can also expect the Attorney General, among others, to weigh in via amicus briefing.