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

Consumer Advocacy Group Inc. v. Five Below Inc.; 1616 Holdings Inc. fka Five Below Merchandising Inc., and Does 1-10

Published: Sep. 9, 2022 | Result Date: Jul. 14, 2022 | Filing Date: Jun. 17, 2020 |

Case number: 20STCV22881 Settlement –  $260,000

Judge

Stuart M. Price

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Reuben Yeroushalmi
(Yeroushalmi & Yeroushalmi)

Shannon E. Royster
(Yeroushalmi & Yeroushalmi)


Defendant

Sonja Anne Inglin
(Cermak & Inglin, LLP)


Facts

The Consumer Advocacy Group (CAG) is an organization qualified to do business in California that seeks to warn consumers of potential product harms. Di (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP), also known as Diethyl Hexyl Phthalate and Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate, has been listed by the California under Proposition 65 as a chemical known to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. Di-n-butyl Phthalate (DBP) has also been listed as a chemical known to cause developmental and reproductive toxicity in California. On June 17, 2020, CAG filed a complaint for civil penalties and injunctive relief against defendants, several Pennsylvania corporations with more than 10 employees, alleging violations of Proposition 65 for failure to give clear and reasonable warnings of alleged exposure to DBP and DEHP.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that the 1616 private label sandals manufactured and sold in California by defendants contained dangerous levels of DEHP and DBP without providing clear and reasonable warnings of such exposures. Moreover, plaintiff argued that defendants knew or should have known that DBP had been identified by the State of California as a chemical known to cause developmental issues and reproductive toxicity, and was subject to the requirements under Proposition 65. Finally, they contended that the knowing violation of Proposition 65 was ongoing and continuous and would not cease unless judicial action was taken.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the material allegation contained in the notices and complaint and maintained that it had not violated Proposition 65, and that all products that it had sold or distributed in California, including the 1616 private label sandals, have been and are in compliance with all laws.

Result

Defendants agreed to pay a total of $260,000, with $45,720 as a civil penalty, and provide a clear and reasonable warning for all future covered products.


#139404

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

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