Proposition 65



 Schedule a Free Consultation Today

Contact Us

 Schedule a Free Consultation Today

Contact Us

 Schedule a Free Consultation Today

Contact Us

Get Answers to Our Firm's Most Frequently Asked Questions

Prop 65 Attorneys in Agoura Hills & Westlake Village

Did a Company Fail to Warn You about Certain Chemicals in Its Products?

Under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, companies are required to include a Prop 65 warning if their product is included on a list of chemicals that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. To hold companies accountable for warning about these dangerous chemicals, individuals can file Prop 65 lawsuits to impose hefty statutory penalties on companies that have violated the law.

If you need to hold a company accountable for unlawful activity, reach out to the Prop 65 attorneys in Agoura Hills & Westlake Village at Bradley/Grombacher LLP for help. Our attorneys serve clients nationwide and have more than 50 years of combined experience that can help you win fair and just compensation and keep other people safe from unlawful business practices.

What Is Proposition 65?

California Proposition 65 (or, Prop 65) was approved by state voters in 1986 and became the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. One requirement of Prop 65 is that the State of California must publish a list of chemicals that are known to cause serious health problems.

What Is The Prop 65 List?

The Prop 65 list was initially published in 1987. It must be updated at least once per year, and it currently includes more than 800 chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or cause reproductive harm.

They must include a warning unless the possible exposure to the chemicals is low enough that it will not pose a significant risk of:

In addition to requiring the publication of the Prop 65 list, the law also requires businesses to include a prop 65 warning if their products include chemicals on the prop 65 list.

  • Cancer
  • Birth defects
  • Or other reproductive harm


Companies are also prohibited from releasing significant amounts of the listed chemicals into drinking water supplies. Prop 65 is enforced by the California Attorney General’s Office as well as district attorneys and city attorneys in cities with populations of more than 750,000.


Prop 65 Penalties

California Prop 65 List of Chemicals

These chemicals may be additives or ingredients in:

Additionally, individuals may file prop 65 lawsuits against companies that are allegedly in violation of the law. Companies that fail to provide a required prop 65 warning may be subject to statutory penalties of as much as $2,500 per violation per day.

  • Household products
  • Foods
  • Drugs
  • Pesticides
  • Solvents
  • Or dyes

The Prop 65 list includes naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that are known carcinogens or that can cause birth defects or reproductive issues.

The chemicals added to the list may be used in manufacturing and construction, or they may be byproducts of a chemical process.

Chemicals may be added to the Prop 65 warning list in one of four different ways:

  • Chemicals that meet certain scientific criteria and which are identified in the California Labor Code as causing cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm are required to be listed on the Prop 65 warning list. The initial list was established in 1986 using this method, and the method is still used to update the list.


  • Committees of scientists and health professionals from the Carcinogen Identification Committee or the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee find that a chemical causes cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. Both of these committees are included as part of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Science Advisory Board.


  • An organization that has been designated as an “authoritative body” by either the Carcinogen Identification Committee or the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee identifies a chemical as causing cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm.



  • A state or federal government agency requires the chemical to be labeled as causing cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. Generally, the chemicals that are added to the Prop 65 warning list are prescription drugs for which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires warnings about cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.


How to File a Prop 65 Lawsuit

There is a very specific procedure for filing a Prop 65 lawsuit.

The California Attorney General’s Office must be notified as soon as the case is filed and must be provided with copies of notices and supporting documents.


These steps are important because the Attorney General’s Office is required to make certain information about pending cases and their outcomes available to the public. The Attorney General’s Office must also be notified about the terms of any Prop 65 settlement that has been reached.


If you are thinking of filing a Prop 65 lawsuit, contact the Prop 65 attorneys in Agoura Hills and Westlake Village at Bradley/Grombacher LLP for a free consultation.



Our legal team is skilled at investigating and litigating Prop 65 lawsuits, helping clients secure compensation while holding companies accountable for the safety of their products.


Galvan v. Doe

$6,750,000

Continue to Stay Informed

Our Blog



By Grombacher February 20, 2026
California Telehealth Company Facing Class Action Over Alleged Physician Misclassification and Unpaid Wages Westlake Village, California – A new class and collective action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Mochi Medical CA, P.C., Mochi Medical, P.A., and Mochi Health Corp., alleging widespread wage-and-hour violations stemming from the alleged misclassification of healthcare providers as independent contractors. The complaint asserts that the defendants operate a telehealth platform for weight management services and a related professional medical group that provides prescription services based on referrals from that platform. According to the lawsuit, the companies uniformly classified physicians and other healthcare professionals as independent contractors despite exercising significant control over their work. The named plaintiff, Dr. Frank Cioppettini, worked remotely as a licensed physician for the defendants from approximately December 10, 2024, to February 14, 2025. The complaint alleges that during this time, he and similarly situated providers were subject to company-directed policies, scheduling requirements, supervision, and performance evaluation, factors that, under California’s “ABC test,” may indicate employee status rather than independent contractor status.  The lawsuit contends that by misclassifying healthcare providers, the defendants failed to provide key protections guaranteed to employees under California law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These alleged violations include failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all wages owed, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages upon termination, and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 for unpaid overtime; failure to pay minimum and all wages; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair business practices. According to the complaint, the defendants maintained uniform scheduling and timekeeping practices across states, and the alleged policies were administered from California. The proposed class includes healthcare professionals classified as contractors whose employment relationships were governed by California law within four years prior to the filing of the action. The lawsuit further alleges that hundreds of providers may have been affected. “This action challenges a uniform scheme to misclassify healthcare providers as independent contractors, despite Defendants’ pervasive control over their work and integration of their services into Defendants’ core business. As a result of this misclassification, employees were unlawfully denied overtime, minimum wages, expense reimbursement, accurate wage statements, and timely final pay,” said attorney Marcus Bradley. The case is styled Frank Cioppettini v. Mochi Medical CA, P.C ., et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-01260, USDC Northern District of California.
By Grombacher November 3, 2025
Spotting false advertising in 2025 is tougher than ever. Bradley/Grombacher breaks down how to protect yourself and take legal action.
How to Recover Financially After Catastrophic Injury
By Grombacher September 5, 2025
Experiencing a catastrophic injury can turn your world upside down and can lead to long-term or permanent physical, emotional, and financial challenges.
Read More

Success Stories

Reviews

We highly recommend!



“Marcus guided us through the entire process with professionalism & compassion. His knowledge, thoroughness, and experience ensured the best possible outcome for our case and we highly recommend him.”

- Kylie & Daniel C.

Schedule a Free Consultation



Contact Us