California’s Proposition 65, formally known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, continues to generate significant litigation pressure on businesses selling products in the state.
The law requires sellers to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” if product use results in knowing and intentional exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
More than 900 chemicals appear on the Proposition 65 List, covering a wide range of substances found across food, consumer goods, cosmetics, and industrial products.
Because the law permits enforcement by private individuals, the so-called bounty hunter provision has long been a source of significant claims and litigation in California.
The statute allows recovery of attorney’s fees in addition to civil penalties as high as $2,500 per day per violation, making litigation and settlement costs substantial for businesses.
In June 2026, product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers were the targets of 520 new Notices of Violation and amended Notices alleging failure to provide required warnings.
Food and drug products dominated the notices, with powdered foods alone attracting at least 103 notices citing lead compounds and cadmium compounds as the alleged chemicals of concern.
Meals and dishes including pasta, sesame cucumber noodles, and sauces received at least 81 notices, with allegations spanning lead compounds, cadmium compounds, and Fumonisin B1.
Fruits and vegetables, snacks, seafood, desserts, and THC-infused products also featured prominently, with seafood notices additionally flagging PFOS, PFOA, and mercury as alleged chemicals.
Consumer products were heavily targeted as well, with miscellaneous goods including workout gear, toys, and decor receiving at least 45 notices citing lead compounds and at least 20 notices citing DEHP, PFOS, and PFOA.
Accessories including shoes, gloves, and jewelry generated at least 22 notices citing di-n-butyl phthalate and hexavalent chromium compounds as alleged chemicals of concern.
Containers such as cases, backpacks, and purses received at least 22 notices citing diisononyl phthalate, DEHP, and Bisphenol A, while household items including pans, mugs, and cutlery attracted at least 20 notices for lead compounds.
Cosmetics and personal care products were also targeted, with skin products and hair products receiving notices citing diethanolamine and DEHP as alleged chemical violations.
Law firm Keller and Heckman, whose attorneys Sophia B. Castillo and Mitzi Ng Clark authored the analysis, noted that numerous defences to Prop. 65 claims exist alongside proactive compliance measures businesses can adopt before receiving a notice.
The firm stated it provides tailored Prop. 65 services across industries including food and beverage, cosmetics, consumer products, e-vapor and tobacco, plastics and rubber, and retail distribution.