The proliferation of Prop 65 enforcement continues. Private enforcers issued over 5,000 notices of violation in 2025, with food, personal care, and apparel companies remaining the primary target of such enforcement.

The long-running titanium dioxide coordinated cases came to a conclusion this year with the California Eastern District Court holding that titanium dioxide cancer warnings in cosmetics violate First Amendment free speech rights. But private enforcers have continued to target cosmetics, filing over 100 lawsuits alleging exposures to diethanolamine (DEA) this year, which has resulted in another coordinated proceeding.

Claims relating to heavy metals in foods, beverages, and supplements – particularly lead and cadmium – remain widespread. And the plaintiff bar has also started to focus again on Bisphenol A (BPA) in foods, as well as trace levels of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in beverages.

Hexavalent chromium and BPA claims continue against textile and apparel companies, with industry settlements on both chemicals in place. But a subset of the BPA cases appear headed for a 2026 trial.

Bisphenol S (BPS), which only became penalty eligible under Prop 65 at the end of 2024, constituted nearly one-fifth of the total notices issued in 2025. These notices allege BPS in thermal products such as receipt paper and thermal stickers/labels. Two enforcers have sued hundreds of companies on this topic. California regulators are also considering listing a class of bisphenols, p,p’-Bisphenols, in addition to the already listed BPS and BPA.

Between the significant enforcement activity concerning BPS and consideration of expanding the bisphenols listed, phenol regulation may be an important issue to track under Prop 65 in 2026.

Beyond the potential bisphenol listing, vinyl acetate was listed early this year, with enforcement potentially beginning in 2026. And future chemical listings may include isoeugenol and talc, because the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) has recently designated these chemicals as potential carcinogens. These new and possible chemical listings may have a wide range of impacts on the various regulated industries.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Will Wagner Will Wagner

Will Wagner focuses his practice in the areas of consumer product defense and regulatory enforcement litigation, including California’s unique Proposition 65, California regulatory actions pertaining to labeling and emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from consumer products, and actions under the Consumer Legal…

Will Wagner focuses his practice in the areas of consumer product defense and regulatory enforcement litigation, including California’s unique Proposition 65, California regulatory actions pertaining to labeling and emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from consumer products, and actions under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Will also handles writ actions related to administrative decisions and procedures, along with commercial disputes and accessibility cases under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Photo of Alexandra “Ally” Lizano Alexandra “Ally” Lizano

Ally Lizano counsels public and private sector clients through the complexities of environmental laws and regulations. She litigates in both state and federal court and provides compliance advice relating to environmental laws such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)…

Ally Lizano counsels public and private sector clients through the complexities of environmental laws and regulations. She litigates in both state and federal court and provides compliance advice relating to environmental laws such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Air Act (CAA) Risk Management Program, and the state counterpart laws and regulations. Ally’s practice also includes consumer product defense and regulatory compliance in California.

As part of her environmental enforcement defense practice, Ally represents clients dealing with enforcement matters with various state and federal agencies. This includes matters involving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board and its Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Additionally, Ally is experienced in environmental site investigation and remediation. She also assists clients with environmental due diligence.

In her consumer product practice, Ally defends clients across the supply chain, including importers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, to ensure compliance with California’s Proposition 65. This often involves litigation of claims related to a broad range of consumer products, such as textiles, personal care products, household goods, and food and beverages.

Photo of Patrick B. Fortelka Patrick B. Fortelka

Patrick Fortelka is a member of the Litigation Practice in Greenberg Traurig’s Sacramento office.