Brimer v. Powercam, Inc.

On August 23, 2013, the parties involved in the enforcement action Brimer v. Powercam, Inc., executed a Consent Judgment.  In this matter, citizen enforcer Russell Brimer alleged that the defendant Powercam, Inc. (“Powercam”) sold vinyl/PVC battery/power cables for portable electronic devices containing the phthalate chemical di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (“DEHP”) in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard warnings. 

As part of the settlement, Powercam agreed not to sell any vinyl/PVC battery/power cables in California after the Alameda Superior Court approves the Consent Judgment, unless the cables contain less than 1,000 parts per million of DEHP in any accessible part when analyzed using state and federally approved testing methodologies.  Should Powercam provide written certification that all cables sold in California after June 14, 2014, and continuing into the future, qualify as reformulated, Brimer agreed to waive a portion of the civil fine that would otherwise be applied. 

The Consent Judgment requires settlement payments of $41,000, divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and compensation to whistleblower Brimer and his counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.