State Curbs on Household Chemicals Under Attack

February 22, 1995

Prop 65, passed in 1986, requires warnings on household products if they expose the public to even minute amounts of chemicals linked to cancer or birth defects. But now the effectiveness of Proposition 65 and the science that underlies it are being challenged. Many legal and scientific experts argue that over the years the law has caused certain hazards to be exaggerated and the public has been misled. link to site.

Source: 
Los Angeles Times
Cross-Post On: 
None

Paint Manufacturer Fined

March 17, 1994

Sherwin-Williams Co. has agreed to pay a $1-million fine for failing to warn consumers that its Krylon spray paints contain the toxic chemical toluene. The state attorney general's office and As You Sow filed separate lawsuits under the 1986 California law, which requires warning labels on products made with chemicals known to cause cancer and birth defects, such as toluene.

Source: 
Los Angeles Times
Cross-Post On: 
None

Toxic-Substances Lawsuits Settled / Paint makers agree to warn about deadly ingredients

March 1, 1995

As You Sow prosecuted major manufacturers of automobile paint for violation of California's toxic-substances law, Proposition 65. The manufacturers agreed to warn consumers that their products contained lead, cadmium and chromium, all of which are deadly chemicals known to cause cancer and birth defects. The settlements require two of the largest manufacturers to remove the chemicals from their new paints. link to source.

Source: 
San Francisco Chronicle

Chemical Firm Settles Suit Over Health Warnings– SF Gate

April 16, 1996

Excerpted from the full length article at SF Gate:

As You Sow filed lawsuit against Ashland Chemical Co. for violations of California's toxic substance law, Proposition 65, for products including cleaning solvents, adhesives, resins and paint thinners. The major chemical company has agreed to put new health warnings on its products and pay up to $1.1 million in fines and expenses as part of their settlement. link to source.

Source: 
San Francisco Chronicle
Cross-Post On: 
None

Many Say Lab-Animal Tests Fail to Measure Human Risk

March 23, 1993

Thousand of caged rats, mice, and other rodents are used to test common environmental and household chemicals in order to identify potential health hazards and assist in setting Federal regulations. But now animal-studies are experiencing doubts about their validity and worth in regards to human effects. So much evidence has uncovered that chemicals frequently have wholly different effects in animals and humans, that officials throughout Government and industry often do not act appropriately.

Source: 
The New York Times

Ceramic Dish Makers Agree to Curb Use of Lead

January 17, 1993

Ten leading ceramic dish manufacturers have agreed to reduce the amount of lead used in the production of their dishes and also institute a warning label to alert consumers of china patterns that pose health hazards. Lead is associated with hypertension and known to cause birth defects along with other reproductive disorders. Stores that sell the dishes are required to have warning signs explaining that the dishes will expose the user to lead. Manufacturers agreed to reduce the lead in dish patterns that exceed the limit by fifty percent over five years.

Source: 
The New York Times
Cross-Post On: 
None

A Danger at Your Fingertips?

August 4, 1993

San Francisco's As You Sow sued over 40 nail polish manufacturers in April for failing to warn consumers of the hazardous side effects from the toxic chemical toluene. The defendants claim the substance is harmless in tiny amounts and does not warrant a warning label. Toluene was rated the 37th most toxic chemical by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in 1992. As You Sow strives to "encourage if not enforce reformulation of nail polishes that contain toluene," said Clifford Chanler, attorney.

Source: 
Los Angeles Times
Cross-Post On: 
None

Our Offices

Section Content: 

The Chanler Group has strategically located offices on both coasts, allowing the firm to best meet the needs of its clients. While it serves clients at its New Canaan and Mill Valley offices, The Chanler Group’s home office is located in New Canaan, Connecticut.

Section Title: 
West Coast
Section Content: 

Mill Valley
91 East Blithedale Avenue #B
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Phone: 510.647.8009
Click here for map and directions

Section Title: 
East Coast
Section Content: 

New Canaan 
72 Huckleberry Hill Road
New Canaan, CT 06840
Phone: 203.966.9911
Click here for map and directions

Section Content: 

 

Our History

Section Content: 

Clifford A. Chanler founded his public interest law firm in 1991 to represent plaintiffs who sought to enforce California’s newly-enacted Proposition 65.  Since then, he has focused his practice on Proposition 65 litigation and enforcement and has been counsel of record for many private enforcers, including non-profit organizations and private citizens.  In this capacity he has handled thousands of private enforcement actions involving hundreds of consumer product categories and a number of harmful chemicals known to cause cancer, reproductive harm, and birth defects.  Our clients' cases have sought to reduce or eliminate the use of heavy metals such as lead and cadmium, solvents like toluene and benzene, and phthalate chemicals used as plasticizers in the manufacture of consumer products.

Through this work, Mr. Chanler's clients and colleagues enforce California consumers’ statutory rights, promote public awareness of exposures to harmful chemicals, and thereby reduce the unnecessary use of hazardous substances in consumer products.  Over the years, The Chanler Group’s clients have successfully resolved hundreds of Proposition 65 cases and have been involved in many of the select few cases proceeding through a full trial on the merits.

The firm’s clients have compelled scores of manufacturers to rid their products of unnecessary and previously hidden toxins and have generated significant civil penalties for the State of California.  The penalties collected to date total over $100 million, including guaranteed payments of approximately $20 million (after taking reformulation credits into account). 

Mr. Chanler has served as counsel in ten Proposition 65 trials, including eight in the last ten years. He has been involved in more than 25 appeals and petitions in Proposition 65 matters brought before the California Courts of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Examples of these matters include DiPirro v. Bondo, (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 150; Brimer v. Faygo Beverages, Inc., (Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Dec. 7, 2007) Case No. A114983 (Unpublished opinion); People v. Cotter & Company, (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1373; As You Sow v. Crawford Laboratories, (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1859; and DiPirro v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 966.  Legal issues raised on appeal include preemption, standing, personal jurisdiction, attorneys’ fees, discovery, liability and merits of the case, preliminary injunctions, and estoppel.

The Chanler Group has litigated more trials and appellate cases than any other Proposition 65 plantiff’s firm.  The firm has also been involved in several Proposition 65 cases brought before the federal courts including  As You Sow v. Sherwin-Williams Co., (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 1993) Case No. C-93-3577-VRW (Unpublished decision).  In addition, Chanler has represented qui tam relators in federal and state False Claim Act cases.

About the CPSIA

Section Content: 

Congress enacted the Consumer Products Safety Act (CPSA) in 1972 to remedy inadequate protections available to consumers from unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products. The statutes adopted under the CPSA were intended to assist consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of consumer products, to develop uniform safety standards for consumer products, to minimize conflicting state and local regulations, and to promote investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries. 

In 2008, after a wave of imported toys and consumer goods were found to contain the toxin lead, Congress enacted the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”)  in order to modernize the Consumer Products Safety Commission (“CPSC”) and establish more stringent consumer product safety standards and safety requirements, with a particular focus on regulating children’s products.

Section Subtitle: 
The Consumer Products Safety Act of 1972 and The Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of 2008
Section Image: 
Section Title: 
General Provisions of the CPSA and CPSIA
Section Content: 

Congress established the CPSC to implement the goals of the CPSA.  The CPSC is charged with four primary duties:

1. To maintain an injury information clearinghouse for the collection and distribution of data relating to the causes and prevention of death, injury, and illness associated with consumer products;

2. To conduct studies and investigations of injuries involving consumer products;

3. To develop safety standards addressing the risk of injury in consumer products;

4. To assist public and private organizations or groups in the development of product safety standards and test methods.

One of the CPSC’s most important functions is the development and promulgation of Consumer Product Safety Standards. Consumer Product Safety Standards are designed to reduce unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products and can be either enforced as performance requirements, i.e., specific chemical content restrictions, or as requirements that a consumer product be marked or accompanied by clear and adequate warnings or instructions, or both. However, if the CPSC determines that a consumer product is being, or will be, distributed in commerce, that the consumer product presents an unreasonable risk of injury, and that no feasible consumer product safety standard would adequately protect the public from an unreasonable risk of injury in such a case, the CPSC may promulgate a regulation declaring such a product to be a Banned Hazardous Product. 

With the enactment of the CPSIA in 2008, the CPSC focused its attention on the stringent regulation of children’s products.  This was accomplished through the passage of various Consumer Product Safety Standards, particularly with regards to lead and phthalate content restrictions.

Under the CPSA, “Children’s Products” are defined as consumer products designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age, or younger.  Factors to be considered when determining whether a particular product qualifies as a “Children’s Product” include: the manufacturer’s intended use of the product; the manner in which the product is represented by its packaging; whether the product is commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by children 12 years or younger; and a consideration of the Age Determination Guidelines issued by the CPSC in 2002.  In 2010, the CPSC defined “Children’s Products” under the CPSIA.

Under the CPSIA, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute into commerce, or import into the United States, any children’s toy or child care article containing concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP),  or butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP). Additionally, the CPSA makes it unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute into commerce, or import into the United States, any children’s toy that can be placed in a child’s mouth or any child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), or di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP).

In addition to the regulation of phthalates in children’s products, the CPSIA also enumerates acceptable lead levels for Children’s Products. The CPSIA bans lead in children’s products in concentrations greater than 100 parts per million (ppm). Additionally, the CPSIA prohibits lead in paint and surface coatings in children’s toys in concentrations greater than 90 ppm.

Section Title: 
Compliance, Enforcement and Injunctive Relief
Section Content: 

Manufacturers of products covered by the CPSA (i.e., products imported into the United States that are subject to a Consumer Product Safety Rule, standard or regulation enforced by the CPSC) must issue a certificate of compliance for each of those products.  The certificate of compliance must declare that the product complies with all of the rules, standards and regulations imposed by the CPSA and the CPSIA.  Such certificates must also identify the manufacturer issuing the certificate, and include the date and place of manufacture, the date and place the product was tested, each party’s name, and the contact information of the person responsible for maintaining records of the test results.

In the event that a manufacturer, distributor or retailer discovers that one of its products contains a defect that poses a substantial product hazard that party is required to immediately inform the CPSC of its failure to comply. The CPSA defines “substantial product hazard” as a failure to comply with an applicable consumer product safety rule under the CPSA and as a product defect that creates a substantial risk of injury to the public. Upon such notification, the CPSC may order the manufacturer, distributor and/or retailer of a non-conforming product to cease distribution of the product, and give public notice of the defect or their failure to comply with the CPSA/CPSIA, as well as to bring the product into compliance.

The CPSA also imposes civil penalties in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each violation and establishes a maximum of $15,000,000 in civil penalties for any related series of violations.  Moreover, the CPSC imposes criminal penalties for any violation of the CPSA.  Such violations are punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years for knowing and willful violations of the stated section, a fine, or both.  Criminal penalties under the statute may also include the forfeiture of assets associated with the violation.  Finally, the CPSC grants all United States district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of the CPSA, to restrain any person from manufacturing, importing, or distributing into the United States a product in violation of the CPSA, and to restrain any person from distributing a product not in conformity with a consumer product safety rule.

Section Image: 
Section Title: 
Suits for Damages by Private Persons and Interested Third Parties
Section Content: 

Private individuals may sue individuals who violate certain provisions of the CPSA. First, any person who sustains an injury by reason of any knowing (including willful) violation of a consumer product safety rule, or any other rule or order issued by the commission, may sue the alleged violator in any U.S. district court.  They may also recover damages and the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and reasonable expert fees.

Second, any interested person has a private right of action to enforce a Consumer Product Safety Rule or Order.  In order to proceed, such interested persons must provide the alleged violating company with notice that its products are in violation of the CPSIA. The noticing party would be able to determine appropriate civil penalties and, if applicable, attorneys’ fees may be recovered. Although, to date, there have been few, if any, private enforcement actions brought under the CPSIA, given the current budgeting restrictions faced by such agencies, including the CPSC, private enforcement actions are likely to become more prevalent.

Syndicate content