Proposition 65 Enforcement Reporting

On August 12, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California entered a permanent injunction order in The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta.

The order states, in pertinent part, “Defendant Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, the State of California’s officers, employees, and agents, and all those acting in privity or concert with those individuals, including private citizen enforcers under California Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(d), are hereby ENJOINED from filing or prosecuting new lawsuits to enforce Prop 65’s warning requirement, California Health & Safety Code § 25249.6, for cancer as applied to Listed Titanium Dioxide (i.e., titanium dioxide that consists of airborne, unbound particles of respirable size) in cosmetics and personal care products. This Order does not alter any existing consent decrees, settlements, or agreements related to Prop 65 warning requirements. The Court further DECLARES that Prop 65’s warning as applied to Listed Titanium Dioxide is unconstitutional and violative of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Proposition 65 litigants and their counsel are responsible for tracking the progress of this case as it evolves and determining whether and how this order may apply to their matters. The Attorney General’s Office cannot provide legal advice to private parties.

On May 2, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California entered a permanent injunction order in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta.

The order states, in pertinent part, “Defendant Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, the State of California’s agents and employees, all persons or entities in privity with them, and anyone acting in concert with them are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing as against California Chamber of Commerce, its members, and all persons its represents, Proposition 65’s warning requirement with respect to dietary acrylamide, including California Health and Safety Code section 25249.6’s requirement that any person in the course of doing business provide a clear and reasonable warning before exposing any individual to dietary acrylamide. The Court further DECLARES that Proposition 65’s warning requirement is unconstitutional as applied to dietary acrylamide."

UPDATE: On June 2, 2025, Defendant Rob Bonta, Attorney General of the State of California, filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Proposition 65 litigants and their counsel are responsible for tracking the progress of this case as it evolves and determining whether and how this order may apply to their particular matters. The Attorney General’s Office cannot provide legal advice to private parties.