This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
Violation of Proposition 65

Safe Products for Californians LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., and Does 1 through 150

Published: Apr. 1, 2022 | Result Date: Feb. 16, 2022 | Filing Date: Jul. 19, 2018 |

Case number: 18CV332640 Settlement –  $19,433

Judge

Drew C. Takaichi

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Tanya E. Moore
(Moore Law Firm PC)


Defendant

Michael J. Gleason
(Hahn, Loeser & Parks LLP)


Facts

In May 2018, Safe Products for Californians, LLC (SPFC) served Lyfe Ventures, LLC and certain requisite public enforcement agencies with a notice of violation, alleging that Lyfe Ventures violated Proposition 65 by failing to warn it customers that its powdered dietary supplement "All in One - Daily Essentials Shake" exposed users to lead and lead compounds. No public enforcement agency prosecuted Lyfe Ventures for these allegations. In July 2018, SPFC brought an action in the public interest of California's citizens to enforce the public's right to be informed of the health hazards caused by exposure to lead and lead compounds. Under Proposition 65, lead and lead compounds are subject to a clear and reasonable warning requirement.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that detectable levels of lead and lead compounds are found in and on the powdered dietary supplement "All in One - Daily Essentials Shake" that Lyfe Ventures manufactures, imports, sells, and distributes in California without providing the required health hazard warning under Proposition 65. Additionally, plaintiff contended that defendant knew and could reasonably foresee that use of the products would expose individuals to lead and lead compounds through ingestion and inhalation.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all material, factual, and legal allegations in the notice and action and maintained that all of its products are in compliance with California law.

Result

The parties settled for $19,433, with $500 in civil penalties and $18,933.18 in attorneys' fees and expenses.


#138597

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390