Skip to Content

Prop 65 / Chemical Exposure Health Risks

California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (“Proposition 65”), is a “right to know” statute requiring the State of California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.  There are currently over 800 chemicals in the list. Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings to consumers before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone in California to a chemical that is in the list. 

Glancy Prongay & Murray’s consumer protection attorneys have extensive experience litigating Proposition 65 cases.  They have the knowledge, contacts, and ability to work closely with laboratories in order to test products for Proposition 65 violations, to prepare and send out the required 60 day notices of violation, and finally to file a complaint and litigate a case if necessary.

Consumer Class Actions

Get In Touch

Disclaimer: By providing my phone number to Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, I agree and acknowledge that Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP may send text messages to my wireless phone number for any purpose. Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency will vary, and you will be able to Opt-out by replying “STOP.” For more information on how your data will be handled please visit https://www.glancylaw.com/privacy-policy/.

New Cases & Investigations
—

If you would like to learn more or become a part of any of our cases

Join Case Now

Court Recognition

“And without question, the Court is of the opinion that the value of benefit that’s been conferred to the class is extremely sizable and that this Court is certainly aware that the skill and efficiency of plaintiff’s counsel is what attributed to this settlement, and they are learned securities counsel. The Court is mindful of that, and as a result they were able to sort of weed their way through the complex issues in this case, and also to bring this about — bring about a settlement rather in short order as these matters go. So the Court certainly attributes that to counsel’s skill and efficiency, as well as the ability to work with the adversaries in this matter.”

–Hon. Susan D. Wigention, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey

“Class Counsel has conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement in good faith and with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy”

— Hon. Donovan W. Frank, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota

“The court finds that the Settlement Fund… created by Class Counsel is an exceptional result… The settlement is significantly above the average securities class action settlement when measured as a percentage of losses recovered… The court finds that Class Counsel, particularly Co-Lead Counsel, exerted tremendous effort on behalf of the class in the prosecution of this action… The Court finds that Class Counsel skillfully prosecuted this action, particularly given that this case was unusually complex relative to most securities fraud class actions. ”

–Hon. Dickran M. Tevrizian (Ret.), U.S. District Court Judge, Central District of California

More Testimonials