Proposition 65: certificates of merit: Attorney General communications.
The bill aims to strengthen the enforcement framework established by Proposition 65 by necessitating a laboratory report that must be submitted with the certificate of merit. This report must indicate the brand name of the product tested, and the analysis should have occurred within one year before the certificate's submission. Furthermore, it reinforces compliance procedures by mandating that the Attorney General's communications regarding litigation are shared with all involved parties, which enhances transparency and fairness in legal proceedings related to toxic substances.
Assembly Bill 3004, introduced by Assembly Member Mike Fong, proposes amendments to Section 25249.7 of the Health and Safety Code, specifically relating to toxic substances and the enforcement of Proposition 65. This bill requires that individuals bringing enforcement actions under Proposition 65 include a certificate of merit, confirming the consultation with experts and a reasonable belief that a violation has occurred. The objective of this requirement is to ensure that claims are substantiated and to deter frivolous lawsuits which can burden the system and businesses alike.
Discussions surrounding AB 3004 display a generally supportive sentiment among legislators prioritizing public health and safety, as the amendments are seen as necessary to uphold the original intent of Proposition 65. However, some stakeholders express concern over the potential for increased litigation burdens on businesses, arguing that the bill may inadvertently create obstacles for genuine claims related to toxic exposures. These stakeholders believe that while the bill aims to mitigate frivolous lawsuits, it could also complicate legitimate enforcement actions.
Notable points of contention include the balance between strengthening regulatory enforcement through stringent requirements versus the risk of overregulation that could hinder lawful compliance efforts. Critics argue that the bill may impose unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that could dissuade individuals from pursuing valid claims, ultimately affecting public health outcomes. The requirement for a certificate of merit and associated reporting obligations may lead to debates on how best to protect consumers without stifling enforcement efforts.