The following is a list of representative cases we are currently litigating:
Nicotine, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde in Electronic Cigarettes:
Proposition 65 enforcement actions against manufacturers and retailers of electronic cigarettes and the liquids used therein for exposures to nicotine, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Nicotine is a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are carcinogens. Although the products cause significant exposure to these toxic chemicals, no warnings are provided. Furthermore, these products are frequently designed for and marketed to teens. (CEH v. Space Jam Juice, LLC, et al.; CEH v. Vape Revolution LLC, et al.) If you would like more information about these cases, please contact the Lexington Law Group at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Class actions against nationally-known tobacco companies such as ITG Brands, LLC and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and affiliates alleging deceptive and unfair sales of electronic cigarette devices in California. Consumers of the products are exposed to significant amounts of harmful carcinogens when using the products as directed. Under California law, companies exposing individuals to cancer-causing chemicals are required to warn those individuals regarding this exposure. Defendants’ failure to provide the legally required cancer warnings for the products constitutes a material omission that is likely to deceive ordinary consumers. Moreover, despite the perception of e-cigarettes as a “healthy” alternative, studies reveal multiple problems with e-cigarette device use, including health risks to the user, the adverse impact on the health and safety of children, teens, and young adults, and a lack of scientific evidence showing that e-cigarettes are effective smoking cessation devices or that they reduce their consumption. (Harris, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company; Whitney, et al. v. ITG Brands, LLC, et al.) If you purchased such products and would like more information about these cases, please contact the Lexington Law Group at email@example.com.
Lead in Clothing:
Private Attorney General action against dozens of retailers and manufacturers of clothing made with leather, vinyl or imitation leather containing substantial amounts of lead. Lead is found in the products as a stabilizer in the vinyl or imitation leather materials, as a chemical ingredient and in the chemicals used in the leather tanning process. Our work has resulted in Consent Judgments against national retailers and vendors of such high-lead clothing requiring reformulation to remove harmful and unnecessary levels of lead from these consumer products. (CEH v. Cecico, Inc., et al.; CEH v. Very J Inc., et al.) If you would like more information about these cases, please contact the Lexington Law Group at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Acrylamide in Fried or Baked Potato or Sweet Potato Based Snack Foods:
Proposition 65 enforcement actions against retailers and manufacturers of snack foods such as veggie chips that fail to warn consumers that they are being exposed to acrylamide, a chemical known in to the State of California to cause cancer. If you would like more information about these cases, please contact the Lexington Law Group at email@example.com.
BPA in Bottled Water and Receipts:
Proposition 65 enforcement actions against companies that expose individuals in California to bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical known to the State of California to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. Such exposures occur when people consume bottled water sold by the Defendants in these actions for use in water coolers, as well as when people handle thermal receipt paper coated with BPA that is provided to consumers by Defendants. For more information, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Fake “Organic” Bedding Products:
The Defendants named in this action represent their products, such as mattresses and pillows, as “organic” despite the fact that the products are predominately comprised of non-organic fibers and contain synthetic substances. California law expressly prohibits companies from this type of false and misleading advertising. We have reached settlements with numerous companies that have agreed to not to sell, label, or represent their products as “organic” unless they contain at least 95% organically produced materials.
1,3-Dichloropopene in Soil Fumigants:
Proposition 65 enforcement action against Dow AgroSciences for failing to warn individuals, including pregnant women and children in Shafter, Calfornia, that they are being exposed to 1,3-Dichloropropene (“1,3-D”), a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. Such exposures occur through the use of soil fumigants that contain 1,3-D as an active ingredient such as Telone II™ sold by Dow AgroSciences.
Southern California Gas Leak:
Lawsuit against SoCalGas, operator of the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility, for exposing the residents of Porter Ranch, California, and surrounding communities to natural gas, hazardous chemicals, and toxic pollutants. Please contact email@example.com for more information.
Challenge to Proposition 65 Lead Safe Harbor Level:
This case seeks to compel the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to repeal the safe harbor level for lead as a reproductive toxin under Proposition 65. The regulatory safe harbor level for lead was established in 1992 based on 14 year old data that was already outdated at the time and that did not support the level set by the agency. Since then, studies have repeatedly concluded that there is no safe threshold exposure level for lead. Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation also seeks to clarify that the safe harbor level for lead is based on a single day of exposure, and that it is not permissible to average days of exposure with days of non-exposure in order to determine whether a warning is required under Proposition 65. Ultimately, Mateel’s case seeks to better protect California residents from unwarned exposures to lead. (Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation v. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) If you would like more information about these cases, please contact the Lexington Law Group at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Lead in Handbags, Footwear and Belts:
Private Attorney General action against hundreds of retailers and manufacturers of fashion accessories containing substantial amounts of lead. Our work has resulted in Consent Judgments against large national retailers and vendors of high-lead handbags, belts and footwear requiring reformulation to remove harmful and unnecessary levels of lead from these consumer products. Examples of national retailers that have agreed to Court ordered reformulation include Aldo, Calvin Klein, Forever 21, Guess?, J.C. Penney, K-Mart, Kohl’s, Limited, Liz Claiborne, Kate Spade, Macy’s, Nine West, Saks, Sears, Target and Victoria’s Secret. (CEH v. Lulu NYC LLC, et al.; CEH v. ANGL, Inc., et al.; CEH v. Miz Mooz, Inc., et al.; CEH v. Rocket Dog Brands LLC, et al.; CEH v. Charming Charlie LLC, et al.)
Paypal Frozen Funds:
Class action against Paypal, Inc. and its parent E-Bay, Inc. alleging defendants placed illegal holds on customer accounts and denied customers access to money in such accounts. The parties have reached a settlement that is awaiting Court approval. (Osman v. Paypal, Inc.).