California Attorney General Sues 20 Retailers and Toy Makers Over Lead Levels in Toys
Case: People of the State of California v. Mattel, Inc., et al.
The One Sentence Summary: Citing recent federal recalls of toys and other consumer goods containing lead at toxic levels, California Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed suit (seeking civil monetary penalties and injunctive relief) against 20 companies, including retailers Wal-Mart, Target, Toys R Us, and Sears, as well as toy makers Mattel, Fisher-Price, and Marvel Entertainment, alleging (1) violations of the state’s “Proposition 65” for exposing people to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, and (2) violation of the state’s unfair business practices act.
Full Posting:
On November 19, 2007, California State Attorney General Jerry Brown, together with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, filed a civil lawsuit based on the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, otherwise known as Proposition 65, and the state’s unfair business practices act, alleging a claim under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code. The case was filed in Alameda Superior Court (Northern California) against 20 companies, including prominent national retailers and manufacturers. The lawsuit was preceded by 60-day notices alleging that the defendants, without giving warnings, were exposing people to listed toxic substances. Prop. 65, which permits private parties to enforce the law under certain circumstances, requires that notice be given to state and local prosecutors, as well as the businesses allegedly in violation of the law, for 60 days before suit can be filed. The notice period allows public prosecutors the opportunity to file suit themselves.
Upon filing suit, Brown’s office announced that “Companies must take every reasonable step to assure that the products they handle are safe for children and their families and fully comply with the law of California. Despite the lengthening global supply chain, every company that does business in this state must follow the law and protect consumers from lead and other toxic materials.”
The lawsuit has significance for retailers operating in California, and for manufacturers of toys or other consumer goods being sold in California. Previous lawsuits brought under Proposition 65 have frequently been settled through the adoption of detailed settlement agreements, which are entered as judgments. Such settlements can impact future testing of products to determine whether they contain threshold amounts of toxic substances. In one recent case, the terms of a 2006 judicially approved settlement involving lead in children’s jewelry became the basis for a new state law governing metallic content of jewelry for both children and others. Health and Safety Code Sec. 25214.1 et seq.
Named in the suit, People of the State of California v. Mattel, Inc., et al., are Mattel, Fisher-Price, Michaels Stores, Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, KB Toys, Costco Wholesale, A&A Global Industries, RC2 Corporation, Eveready Battery Company, Kids II, Kmart, Marvel Entertainment, and Toy Investments.
Proposition 65 became state law through California’s initiative process when voters approved the measure in 1986. Although the law does not necessarily prohibit businesses from exposing consumers, employees, and members of the public to listed chemicals, provided appropriate warning are given, litigation has sometimes resulted in the reformulation of products to reduce or eliminate the target substances.
The One Sentence Summary: Citing recent federal recalls of toys and other consumer goods containing lead at toxic levels, California Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed suit (seeking civil monetary penalties and injunctive relief) against 20 companies, including retailers Wal-Mart, Target, Toys R Us, and Sears, as well as toy makers Mattel, Fisher-Price, and Marvel Entertainment, alleging (1) violations of the state’s “Proposition 65” for exposing people to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, and (2) violation of the state’s unfair business practices act.
Full Posting:
On November 19, 2007, California State Attorney General Jerry Brown, together with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, filed a civil lawsuit based on the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, otherwise known as Proposition 65, and the state’s unfair business practices act, alleging a claim under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code. The case was filed in Alameda Superior Court (Northern California) against 20 companies, including prominent national retailers and manufacturers. The lawsuit was preceded by 60-day notices alleging that the defendants, without giving warnings, were exposing people to listed toxic substances. Prop. 65, which permits private parties to enforce the law under certain circumstances, requires that notice be given to state and local prosecutors, as well as the businesses allegedly in violation of the law, for 60 days before suit can be filed. The notice period allows public prosecutors the opportunity to file suit themselves.
Upon filing suit, Brown’s office announced that “Companies must take every reasonable step to assure that the products they handle are safe for children and their families and fully comply with the law of California. Despite the lengthening global supply chain, every company that does business in this state must follow the law and protect consumers from lead and other toxic materials.”
The lawsuit has significance for retailers operating in California, and for manufacturers of toys or other consumer goods being sold in California. Previous lawsuits brought under Proposition 65 have frequently been settled through the adoption of detailed settlement agreements, which are entered as judgments. Such settlements can impact future testing of products to determine whether they contain threshold amounts of toxic substances. In one recent case, the terms of a 2006 judicially approved settlement involving lead in children’s jewelry became the basis for a new state law governing metallic content of jewelry for both children and others. Health and Safety Code Sec. 25214.1 et seq.
Named in the suit, People of the State of California v. Mattel, Inc., et al., are Mattel, Fisher-Price, Michaels Stores, Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, KB Toys, Costco Wholesale, A&A Global Industries, RC2 Corporation, Eveready Battery Company, Kids II, Kmart, Marvel Entertainment, and Toy Investments.
Proposition 65 became state law through California’s initiative process when voters approved the measure in 1986. Although the law does not necessarily prohibit businesses from exposing consumers, employees, and members of the public to listed chemicals, provided appropriate warning are given, litigation has sometimes resulted in the reformulation of products to reduce or eliminate the target substances.
Labels: Consumers
posted by at 11/19/2007
<< Home