Private enforcers have issued over 2,600 notices of violation in California so far in 2026, with food, personal care, and apparel companies remaining the primary targets.
The continued proliferation of Prop 65 enforcement reflects an increasingly aggressive approach by private plaintiffs pursuing chemical exposure claims across multiple industries.
Diethanolamine, or DEA, in personal care products and cosmetics has been a sustained focus, with over 100 lawsuits filed alleging exposures in 2025 and continuing into 2026.
A coordinated proceeding targeting DEA is currently underway in Alameda County Superior Court, consolidating a large number of related cases against personal care product manufacturers.
In a significant legal development, the Personal Care Products Council filed suit in federal court arguing that Prop 65 cancer warnings for DEA violate the First Amendment.
The California Attorney General stipulated to judgment in favor of the Personal Care Products Council in June, conceding that compelled Prop 65 cancer warnings for DEA violate the First Amendment.
This ruling is widely expected to effectively end the coordinated DEA cases and prevent future enforcement actions targeting the chemical in personal care products.
Heavy metals in foods, beverages, and supplements continue to generate widespread claims, with a notable acceleration in suits alleging exposures to cadmium and lead.
A petition to coordinate has been granted, combining dozens of cadmium cases to resolve the central legal question of whether exposures to cadmium may be averaged over time.
The plaintiff bar has also turned its attention back to BPA in canned foods and beverages, as well as trace levels of PFOA in beverages, broadening the enforcement landscape further.
Aflatoxins in foods have emerged as a newly popular enforcement target in 2026, with approximately 60 notices filed this year targeting a range of agricultural and food products.
Aflatoxins have been listed under Prop 65 as a carcinogen since the 1980s, yet the first notice of violation was not filed until August 2025, making this a rapidly developing area.
BPS, which only became penalty eligible under Prop 65 at the end of 2024, accounted for nearly one-fifth of all notices issued in 2025, primarily targeting thermal products such as receipt paper.
Two enforcers have sued hundreds of companies over BPS in thermal products, though an industry-wide resolution on this issue is described as nearly final.
On the regulatory front, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is evaluating whether to add the broader class of p,p’-bisphenol to the Prop 65 list.
Vinyl acetate was listed as a Prop 65 chemical early last year, with the warning requirement taking effect on January 3, 2026, and enforcement actions are considered forthcoming.
A growing body of appellate decisions is also reshaping the procedural landscape, particularly around the standard for evaluating notice defects in Prop 65 actions.
In Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Pancho Villa’s, Inc., the Fourth Appellate District held that Prop 65 pre-suit notice regulations are directory rather than mandatory, establishing substantial compliance as the governing test.
Several other appellate courts have subsequently agreed with that decision, signalling a broader judicial shift in how procedural defects in Prop 65 notices are assessed.