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

Environmental Research Center Inc. v. Newport News Nutrition Corner LLC, individually and dba The Nutrition Corners; Arlington Nutrition Corner LLC, individually and dba The Nutrition Corners; 'merica Labz, LLC; 'merica Energy LLC; Core Nutritionals LLC; and Does 1-100

Published: Jun. 30, 2023 | Result Date: Jan. 19, 2023 | Filing Date: Apr. 6, 2021 |

Case number: RG21094334 Settlement –  $120,000

Judge

Rebekah B. Evenson

Court

Alameda County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Charles W. Poss
(Environmental Research Center Inc.)


Defendant

Garth N. Ward
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)

Lawrence R. LaPorte
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)


Facts

Newport News Nutrition and Arlington Nutrition Corner are in the business of selling, distributing, manufacturing, and developing nutritional health products. Their products include, but are not limited to protein blends, pre- and post-workout supplement blends, and energy drinks in various flavors, such as Let's Make 'Merica Grape Again. On April 6, 2021, the Environmental Research Center (ERC), a nonprofit dedicated to safeguarding the public from health hazards, brought an action against Newport News, Arlington Nutrition and all their legal entities and dba's, including 'Merica Labz, alleging that they violated Proposition 65 because their products contained lead and/or mercury in levels exceeding the maximum allowable dose and were required to provide the requisite notification by law.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant knowingly and continuously exposed users of the products to lead by not providing the required statutory warning.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all material contentions.

Result

The case settled for $120,000. Moreover, defendant was permanently enjoined from manufacturing for sale, distributing, or directly selling the contested products unless Prop 65 warning requirements were met. Consequently, defendant was required to reformulate the products or, alternatively, provide Prop 65 clear and reasonable warnings.


#141025

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

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