Pub. 7 2018-2019 Issue 1

18 San Diego Dealer C alifornia's Proposition 65, also called the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, was enacted in 1986. It is intended to help Californiansmake informed decisions about protecting themselves fromchemi- cals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. The law has certain nuances not normally seen in toxic chemical regulations. The specific ones that catch our attention are as follows: • No Harm Requirement: Most of the regulations require that an actual harm be done before damages be awarded. In this case, the absence of mere warningwas sufficient cause for dealers to cough up big money. A penalty of $2500 per day! • Standing: In order to litigate, a plain- tiff must allege some connection to and actual or potential harm. Under this unique law, without harm but the mere absence of notice was suf- ficient cause for payment to plaintiff lawyers. • BountyHunter Clause: Proposition 65 is enforced entirely through litigation. While California’s AG is vested with principal enforcement, Proposition 65 also allows any individual or orga- nization “acting in public interest” to sue for violations. The individuals or organizations can potentially collect attorney fees and 25% of any pen- alties assessed. Reportedly, 20,000 businesses have paidmore than $600 million in penalties since 1987. This makes the case to use your $200 sign kit even stronger! What Chemicals Need Warning? This list currently includes more than 850 chemicals. Proposition 65 does not ban or restrict the sale of chemicals on the list. The warnings are intended to help Californians make informeddecisions about their expo- sures to these chemicals in the products they use and the places they go. By Sam Celly, BCHE MCHE JD CSP POSTING OF PROPOSITION 65 SIGNS AT CALIFORNIA AUTO DEALERSHIPS PROP 65