Vinocur, et al. v. Future Foam, Inc.

Citizen enforcers Laurence Vinocur and Peter Englander’s allegations against defendant Future Foam, Inc. (“Future Foam”) were resolved on June 17, 2015, when the parties entered into a Consent Judgment.  In this matter, Vinocur and Englander alleged that Future Foam sold foam intended for use as padding in upholstered furniture containing the flame retardant tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (“TDCPP”) in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard warnings.

As part of the settlement, Future Foam agreed not to sell any foam in California after the Alameda County Superior Court enters the Judgment, unless the foam contains no detectable amount of TDCPP when analyzed using state or federally approved testing methodologies. Additionally, Future Foam agreed to provide Proposition 65 warnings to each of its California retailers or distributors to whom Future Foam reasonably believes it sold foam that contained or may have contained intentionally added TDCPP.  Additionally, Vinocur and Englander agreed to waive a portion of the civil fine should Future Foam extend the breadth of reformulation and provide written certification that all foam sold in California 30 days after the Effective Date contains no detectable amounts of tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate (“TDBPP”) and tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (“TCEP”) in addition to satisfying the TCEP and TDCPP requirements.

The Consent Judgment requires settlement payments of $30,500, divided therein between civil penalties, 75% of which are paid to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and compensation to whistleblower Vinocur and Englander and their counsel for their successful enforcement of this matter in the public interest.