Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 04-08-2022
Case Style:
Case Number: RG14738130
Judge:
Court: Superior Court, Alameda County, California
Plaintiff's Attorney: Jonathan Weissglass
Defendant's Attorney: Gregory L. Doll, Brett H. Oberst, Jamie O, Kendall, Lloyd Vu
Description: Oakland, California personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a Proposition 65 violation theory.
Under legislation enacted as Proposition 65 in 1986, businesses are
prohibited from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to
certain chemicals without first providing a warning. Lee seeks to hold
Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) accountable for offering on its Web site, without
warnings, certain skin-lightening face creams sold by third parties and
alleged to contain mercury. The trial court concluded that Amazon is
immune from liability under the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA)
and also that Lee failed to establish several elements of his case under
Proposition 65.
California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986
(Act) (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq.), adopted by voter initiative in
1986 and commonly known as Proposition 65, provides, “No person in the
course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any
individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive
toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual,
except as provided in Section 25249.10.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.6.)
Mercury and mercury compounds were listed by the state as reproductive
toxins under Proposition 65 in 1990. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 27,2 § 27001,
subd. (c); see Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.8.)
Outcome: The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for further
proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.
On remand, if Lee is able to establish all the elements of his claims as
to the products purchased from Amazon and tested for mercury content, the
trial court shall determine whether the products with different ASINs
identified in Lee’s pretrial brief as among the 11 products at issue were in
fact the same products as the ones for which samples were tested, and shall
determine penalties in accordance with Health and Safety Code section
25249.7 for any violations of Proposition 65 established.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: