Prop 65 Violations Newsletter, August 2025

By Pejman Javaheri Prop 65 Newsletter September 5, 2025

California Proposition 65 Enforcement: August 2025 Update

California Proposition 65 enforcement remained strong in August 2025, with 341 Notices of Violation (NOVs) filed. The most frequently cited chemicals included lead, cadmium, phthalates, BPA/BPS, PFAS, and diethanolamine. Enforcement actions once again targeted high-risk industries such as food, supplements, cosmetics, household packaging, and retail goods.

For companies manufacturing, importing, or selling in California, this month’s notices emphasize the need for proactive Prop 65 compliance programs. Businesses should monitor ongoing litigation trends, test supply chains, and review warning label obligations to mitigate exposure to costly lawsuits.

August 1–31, 2025 Proposition 65 Notices of Violation Summary

Number of Violations	Listed Chemicals	Types of Products Targeted
163	Lead, Cadmium	Seafood (anchovies, clams, shrimp), ceramic mugs, tools, utensils
74	Phthalates (DEHP, DINP, DBP)	Cosmetic bags, vinyl covers, plastic cases, children’s goods
31	Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol S (BPS)	Thermal receipt paper, food containers, canned goods
8	PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA)	CBD oils, waterproof packaging, personal care products
6	Diethanolamine, cocamide DEA	Lotions, shampoos, grooming products

What is Proposition 65 and Why Does It Matter?

Proposition 65, formally the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires businesses to warn Californians about exposures to over 900 listed chemicals. These chemicals include lead, cadmium, phthalates, BPA/BPS, and PFAS—substances often found in food, packaging, cosmetics, and consumer goods.

Violations can lead to:

Civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation per day

Product reformulation, mandatory warning labels, or recalls

Expensive litigation and settlement costs

Prop 65 Enforcement Trends – August 2025

Lead and Cadmium in Food & Utensils

Heavy metals remain the top enforcement drivers. Seafood, ceramic mugs, and metal tools were repeatedly flagged for lead and cadmium contamination. Importers of food products face especially high risk. (See our Food Recall Tracker for the latest recalls involving heavy metals in food.)

Phthalates in Vinyl Accessories

DEHP and DINP violations persisted across vinyl pouches, cosmetic bags, and children’s goods, underscoring scrutiny of flexible plastics and soft materials.

Bisphenols in Labels and Packaging

BPA and BPS were cited in thermal receipts, canned goods, and packaging. Because BPS lacks a safe harbor level, retailers and food brands remain highly exposed.

PFAS in Cosmetics, CBD, and Packaging

Notices citing PFOA and PFOS involved CBD oils, waterproof containers, and cosmetic packaging, highlighting growing PFAS risks where safe harbor levels are absent. Cannabis and hemp-derived products continue to face Prop 65 scrutiny, with multiple notices citing CBD topicals and edibles.

Diethanolamine in Personal Care Products

Lotions, shampoos, and styling products continue to draw scrutiny for diethanolamine, a known carcinogen under Prop 65.

Product Categories Most Frequently Targeted

Food & Beverage

Anchovies, clams, shrimp, and sardines

Canned sauces and condiments

Protein powders and dietary supplements

Beauty & Wellness

CBD oils, balms, and topicals

Lotions, shampoos, body washes

Cosmetic bags and plastic cases

Household & Retail Packaging

Thermal receipt paper and shipping labels

Ceramic mugs and cookware

Vinyl covers and pouches

Tools & Art Supplies

Scissors, knives, and metal utensils

Artist paints and ceramic glazes

Top Chemicals and Companies Cited

Top Chemicals (August 2025)

Top 25 Companies Cited

Top 10 Most Cited Companies

Company	Notices Received
Walmart Inc.	15
Amazon.com, Inc.	12
The TJX Companies, Inc.	11
Target Corporation	9
Ross Stores, Inc.	8
Gelson’s Markets	7
Sprouts Farmers Market	6
Burlington Stores	6
CVS Pharmacy	5
Hobby Lobby Stores	5

Top Noticing Parties – August 2025

Top 10 Noticing Parties

Noticing Party	Notices Filed
Environmental Health Advocates, Inc.	286
Center for Consumer Safety, LLC	45
Ecological Alliance, LLC	42
CalSafe Research Center, Inc.	38
Gabriel Espinoza	31
Ema Bell	23
Consumer Rights Advocates, LLC	21
Dennis Johnson	20
Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc.	18
Keep America Safe and Beautiful	16

What Risks Do Licensors Face When Licensees Trigger Prop 65 Violations?

Even if you don’t make or distribute the product, your brand name on packaging can expose you to liability.

Best Practices for Licensors:

Require Prop 65 compliance clauses in license agreements

Mandate periodic chemical testing by licensees

Include indemnity and insurance protections

Monitor licensee e-commerce listings for Prop 65 risks

How Can My Company Avoid a Prop 65 Lawsuit?

Test Products and Packaging – Use third-party labs to screen for metals, phthalates, PFAS, and bisphenols.

Update Warning Labels – Ensure compliant, chemical-specific warnings on packaging and online.

Strengthen Supplier Agreements – Add Prop 65 warranties and indemnities.

Monitor Enforcement Trends – Track competitor notices; if others in your category are targeted, you may be next.

Engage Legal Counsel Early – Juris Law Group can assess claims, coordinate testing, negotiate settlements, and defend in court.

How Juris Law Group Can Help

Juris Law Group, recognized in Chambers USA, is a trusted advisor to food, beverage, supplement, and cosmetic brands navigating Proposition 65. Our services include:

Compliance audits and proactive testing strategies

Tailored Prop 65 warning label programs

Supply chain contract reviews with indemnity protection

Aggressive defense of 60-day notices

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Does Prop 65 apply to naturally occurring metals?

Yes. Even naturally occurring lead and cadmium in foods such as seafood, cacao, and turmeric can trigger Prop 65 violations if exposure exceeds the state’s limits.

Q2: Are retailers liable for online sales?

Yes. Online listings targeting California consumers must include clear Prop 65 warnings before checkout. Retailers can be cited if warnings are missing, even when selling through third-party platforms like Amazon or Etsy.

Q3: What should I do if my supplier is cited?

Retailers and distributors should review contracts to ensure suppliers indemnify them for Prop 65 liability. Even if you did not manufacture the product, your brand can still be named in enforcement actions.

Q4: What are safe harbor levels?

Safe harbor levels are thresholds below which Prop 65 warnings are not required. Many chemicals actively cited in August 2025—including BPS and PFAS—do not have safe harbor levels, making even trace exposures a litigation risk.

Q5: Are PFAS enforcement actions here to stay?

Yes. PFAS (such as PFOA and PFOS) are persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals that remain a top priority for both regulators and plaintiffs. Recent notices in CBD oils, cosmetic packaging, and waterproof goods confirm PFAS enforcement will continue to expand.

Want to Protect Your Brand from a Prop 65 Lawsuit?

Pejman Javaheri / About Author

Pejman Javaheri, Esq., is the founder of Juris Law Group, P.C., a firm established in 2009 that specializes in Food IP Licensing and related areas of food and beverage law. With a commitment to integrating legal excellence into business strategies, Javaheri leads a firm renowned for its expertise in areas such as Food & Beverage Law, Licensing & Brand Protection, Outside General Counsel, Consumer Products & Manufacturing, Corporate & Business Law, Family Office, and Business Affairs. Pejman Javaheri brings a unique and comprehensive approach to legal services, particularly in the realm of licensing agreements. Under his leadership, the firm has excelled in areas such as Food & Beverage Law, where his team supports a range of clients from agribusinesses to retailers. In Licensing & Brand Protection, Javaheri has led the firm to become a leader in the food and beverage space, expertly handling negotiations, terms sheets, and drafting industry-standard license agreements.

Pejman Javaheri also specializes in Outside General Counsel, providing strategic planning and comprehensive legal advice; Consumer Products & Manufacturing, focusing on compliance and risk management; Corporate & Business Law, offering a streamlined boutique approach; Family Office, delivering personalized counsel; and Business Affairs, where Javaheri's team combines legal acumen with business insight.

His academic foundation in Political Science and Psychology from the University of California, Irvine, combined with a Juris Doctor from UC Hastings College of the Law, set the stage for a career marked by innovation and comprehensive legal solutions.

At Winston & Strawn, LLP, Javaheri refined his skills in corporate, real estate, and finance law. He is celebrated for his role as a strategic business planner and legal expert, earning the title Chief 'Get Sh!t Done' Officer™ for his dynamic, results-oriented approach. His leadership in community involvement is highlighted by his prestigious role on the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers’ Charities (LATLC) Honorary Board of Directors.

Embodying ethics, commitment, professionalism, confidentiality, and creativity, Javaheri's approach is defined by integrity, a client-focused urgency, and a constant drive for innovation. At Juris Law Group, he not only provides legal solutions but also nurtures the growth and success of his clients' businesses and ventures, adapting to their evolving needs.

Food IP licensing offers a unique opportunity for brand expansion and consumer engagement. Juris Law Group’s experience in facilitating diverse licensing agreements, coupled with the growing trend of major brands entering this space, underscores the potential of this sector. If you are considering leveraging your IP in the food and beverage industry, our team at Juris Law Group is equipped to guide you through this journey. Contact our expert food and beverage licensing lawyers today.