We’ve commented before on both the ubiquity and increasing comic absurdity of Prop 65 warnings in California. Prop 65—which requires warning labels on products that contain materials the state deems carcinogenic (including chemicals that are solely carcinogenic in animals)—has been a goldmine for plaintiffs’ lawyers. Its private attorney general provisions provide an abundant source of plaintiffs, who don’t have to show harm to enforce the measure in court. And the promise of attorneys’ fees have provided more than an adequate incentive to ensure that strike suits will be brought. The whole endeavor has resulted in companies defensively labeling everything, and a state plastered in Prop 65 signs whose content has been rendered meaningless by its omnipresence.
While a treasure-trove for lawyers, it can hardly be said that Californians have benefitted from these lawsuits. Attorneys walked away with 74% of Prop 65 settlement awards in 2011, and Californians in turn received the benefit of having been conditioned to the pervasive warnings. Like a cliché, the intentions behind the law (if there were ever were good ones) have been lost. Instead of signifying a warning, the signs now signify something else: frivolous litigation. In other words, to many Californians, the law is one brick short of a load.
Fortunately the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Sacramento has refused to take residents one step further down the path laid with good intentions (and that leads you know where) by rejecting the state’s attempt to list two chemicals “possibly” linked to cancer. In Styrene Information and Research Center v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, The court found instead that only those chemicals known to cause cancer may be listed, saving Californians’ eyes from a whole new host of warnings on the several products that contain styrene and vinyl acetate—the chemicals at issue.
Based on its prior cases and maxims of statutory interpretation, the court determined that “chemicals may be included on the Proposition 65 list only if there is a sufficient showing that they in fact cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” That is, the OEHHA can’t list chemicals subject to Prop 65 warning labels willy-nilly.
Not one regulatory body, international or domestic, has deemed styrene a known human carcinogen (though many have raised the issue of it being a “potential” human carcinogen.) That’s not to say that it’s not carcinogenic. Rather, our sore eyes merely ask for prudence before hampering industry and contributing to the lawsuit mill. Currently, one often learns a new cause of action every day, but thankfully the Court of Appeals is attempting to limit those causes of action to where they are truly appropriate.
Cross-posted at WLF’s Forbes.com contributor page
As class-actions continue to proliferate and cy pres provisions become increasingly common in settlement agreements, judicial oversight of these provisions has become increasingly meaningful. Cy pres provisions–which allocate a portion of the settlement funds to charities–are meant to compensate absent class members and prevent the defendant from benefitting from any unclaimed funds. The rise of cy pres has been followed by the specter of impropriety, as plaintiffs’ firms, defendants or judges may be connected to the benefitting organization. Cy pres arrangements further undermine the benevolent pretense of class action lawsuits, as they do precious little to compensate the supposedly injured class members. However, judges have recently been signaling their willingness to reject cy pres terms where they do not fulfill their purpose. A judge in the Southern District of California recently rejected an entire settlement agreement based on its cy pres provisions, following on the heels of Dennis v. Kellogg (which we blogged about here) and expressly relying on that case.
The case, In Re: Groupon, Inc. had been brought based on Groupon’s “allegedly improper expiration dates and other purportedly objectionable provisions (e.g., requirements that gift certificates be used in a single transaction, that cash refunds will not be made for unused portion, and inclusion of class action waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions)”–stipulations which hardly shock the conscience. Before the parties could agree on a forum for adjudication, the parties entered into settlement negotiations and jointly supported the proposed settlement. Continue reading
Cross-posted at WLF’s Forbes.com contributor site
Despite the Supreme Court’s recent affirmation that arbitration agreements must be enforced by their terms (AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion), some courts continue to go to great lengths to avoid them. Take for instance the California Court of Appeal that recently held an arbitration agreement unenforceable because it wasn’t signed, despite that the employee was herself tasked with obtaining signed arbitration agreements from the other employees, she represented to the company that she had signed it, and the company had required she sign it as a condition of her employment.
Of course, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made it easier for judges to flout the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion when it ruled in D. R. Horton Inc. that to include a mandatory class arbitration waiver in an employment agreement is to commit an unfair labor practice, as it violates the employees’ right to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection..”. Continue reading
Cross-posted at Forbes.com’s WLF contributor site
One of the hallmarks of frivolous litigation is a class composed of arguably uninjured plaintiffs who often receive little in the way of remuneration for the asserted wrong. That remuneration is reserved for the lawyers, and the class is thus relegated to receiving coupons or promises to refrain from future behavior. Where the plaintiffs have not endured any real harm, litigation merely burdens the docket while enriching plaintiffs’ lawyers. However, a recent opinion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California may bode well for defendants who encounter this type of litigation, particularly in data breach cases.
In an order for In re: Sony Gaming Networks, the district court granted leave for plaintiffs to amend their complaint after determining that they had not satisfied the burden of pleading a cognizable injury. This opinion adds to case-law saying the same; in 2011, another California court dismissed some of the claims against Google for its data collection under the Google Street View program due to the plaintiffs’ lack of monetary damages. Continue reading
After any Supreme Court ruling, inevitable accusations of judicial politicking ensue. The focus on the identities of the voters often obscures the legal analysis behind the vote. However, this public discourse also underscores the fact that, in theory at least, we believe that adjudicators should be unbiased. What is law if not fair, and what is fairness without dispassionate adjudicators?
The founding fathers, aware of the danger of a corrupt judiciary, explicitly enshrined the notion of judicial independence in the Constitution, mandating that judicial compensation “shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” U.S. Const. Art. III §1. The thought was the congressional and executive branches should not be able to leverage the judiciary by threatening its compensation. Additionally, reasonable compensation attracts talented lawyers to the bench, thereby improving the administration of justice. So long as that compensation is maintained, judges will not be tempted to leave the bench–where subsequent private practice could be threatened by one’s previous judicial decisions, or vice versa. Continue reading
Cross-posted at WLF’s Forbes.com contributor site
In a 1960 opinion, Judge Henry Friendly began by asking “what is chicken?” While an amusing question–even children know a chicken when they see one–the query was more nuanced as a matter of law. California courts are finding themselves asking a similar question: what is “natural?”
Some products are intuitively so: with raw apples, almonds, or broccoli, it seems apparent. But what happens when you make apples into apple juice, or roast those almonds, or blanch that broccoli before freezing it for later use? These finished products are widely considered wholesome, and many would argue an almond is an almond (with the exception of the raw foods movement.)
The dictionary has fifteen different definitions for “natural”. The first is: “based on an inherent sense of right or wrong”–an intrinsically subjective definition. Given the ambiguous nature of the term, it’s no wonder the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been loath to come out and define “natural” for advertising and promotional purposes. But when businesses are begging the FDA to come in and regulate them, something must be amiss. And indeed, it is. Lawsuits contesting food companies’ use of the term “natural” have proliferated, most notably in the “Food Court,” i.e. the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Businesses now simply want clarity. And if these lawsuits are really driven by concern for consumers’ well-being, so should the plaintiffs. Continue reading
Cross-posted at WLF’s Forbes.com contributor site
First, they argued that Californians must be warned of the possible carcinogenic effects of driving in parking garages. Then it was lighting matches, eating potato chips, and plugging in Christmas lights. According to plaintiffs’ lawyers, our most innocuous habits must be warned against. Now, drinking coffee is a purportedly dangerous practice–or so alleges The Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT).
CERT has brought a lawsuit against coffee roasting companies under California’s Proposition 65. Prop 65, as many Californians are aware, requires warning labels to be placed on products that contain materials the state alleges are associated with cancer, and the act’s private attorney general provisions allow consumers–even those who cannot show they’ve been harmed–to bring lawsuits to enforce the act. The act also provides for attorneys’ fees.
You can guess what Prop 65 hath wrought: litigation has erupted, and strike suits under the act have become a cottage industry. Even the iPhone (not my iPhone!) has been targeted by environmental groups.
According to the California Office of the Attorney General, 74% of Prop 65 settlement awards in 2011 went to attorneys’ fees and costs. Producers have responded accordingly, and companies now slap Prop 65 warnings on just about every product in an effort to not be sued. This fact severely undermines the usefulness of the warnings. Continue reading