California 2021-2022 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB2743

Introduced
2/18/22  
Refer
3/24/22  
Refer
3/24/22  
Report Pass
3/24/22  
Report Pass
3/24/22  
Refer
3/28/22  
Refer
3/28/22  
Report Pass
3/30/22  
Report Pass
3/30/22  
Refer
3/31/22  

Caption

Proposition 65: enforcement: private actions.

Impact

The proposed changes in AB 2743 aim to clarify and tighten the enforcement process surrounding Proposition 65, which already prohibits unnotified exposure to hazardous chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. By requiring a certificate of merit and explicit notice to alleged violators, the bill intends to deter frivolous lawsuits while still allowing for legitimate claims to be made. This could potentially streamline the legal process and make it easier for the courts to handle cases related to toxic exposures, ensuring that only those with a credible basis for their claims could proceed.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2743, introduced by Assembly Member Mike Fong, seeks to amend Section 25249.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, specifically addressing the enforcement provisions of Proposition 65. This legislation enhances the procedural requirements for individuals seeking to take private action against entities for violating the toxic substance exposure regulations established by Proposition 65. It requires individuals to provide a notice of violation and include a certificate of merit before initiating legal actions, ensuring that the claim is backed by credible expertise related to the alleged exposure.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 2743 is mixed among stakeholders. Proponents argue that the additional requirements for private action will help to maintain the integrity of Proposition 65 by discouraging non-meritorious lawsuits, thus alleviating the burden on the courts and businesses. Conversely, critics express concern that these changes may limit access to justice for individuals exposed to harmful substances, as the expanded procedural hurdles could deter those without sufficient knowledge or resources from pursuing claims. This highlights the tension between regulatory enforcement and community protection.

Contention

A notable point of contention surrounding AB 2743 is the balance between preventing frivolous lawsuits and ensuring accountability for toxic exposure. While some lawmakers and business advocates support the measures as necessary for enhancing the enforcement mechanisms of Proposition 65, environmental and public health advocates raise alarms about the potential chilling effect on individuals’ ability to seek redress for legitimate grievances. The outcome of this legislative effort could significantly influence the enforcement landscape for toxic exposure cases in California.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1583

Proposition 65: enforcement: certificate of merit: factual basis.

CA AB1123

Safe Drinking and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986: appeal: notice to the Attorney General.

CA AB3004

Proposition 65: certificates of merit: Attorney General communications.

CA AB2849

Proposition 65: enforcement.

CA AB693

Proposition 65: enforcement.

CA AB1521

Proposition 65: certificate of merit.

CA AB1621

Proposition 65: enforcement: private actions.

CA AB1495

Civil liability: sexual abuse: children.