The recent decision in the coffee case is a salient example of a common criticism of Proposition 65 that it leads to warning fatigue. As consumers are faced with more and more warnings, the warnings become less and less effective, even when the threat may be significant. Some have argued that warnings do not change consumer behavior at all, meaning that coffee drinkers are unlikely to stop ordering their regular beverage even if it comes with a cancer warning.
OEHHA is accepting public comments on its proposed regulation under August 30, 2018, and a public hearing is scheduled for August 16, 2018.
Weiss is a partner with Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP in Los Angeles. Reach him at mweiss@huntonAK.com. Oldenburg is a senior attorney with the same firm. Reach her at soldenburg@huntonAK.com. And Hamilton is an associate with the firm in Washington, D.C. Reach her at ahamilton@HuntonAK.com.
*Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp. et al., No. BC435759, and Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Brad Barry Company Ltd. et al., No. BC461182, both in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.