- within Environment topic(s)
- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
- within Government and Public Sector topic(s)
In the three months since our previous post about major California businesses being targeted with a Proposition 65 ("Prop. 65") Notice of Violation ("NOV") for allegedly exposing California customers to Bisphenol S (BPS) in receipts, a surge of similar NOVs has followed.
On April 11, 2025, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), represented by Lexington Law Group, issued NOVs under California's Prop. 65 to over 40 businesses, alleging that their thermal receipt paper contains BPS, a chemical alleged to cause reproductive harm pursuant to Prop. 65. Since then, approximately 325 NOVs targeting over 440 corporate entities have been issued. Plaintiff Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. ("EHA"), represented by Entorno Law, has joined CEH in targeting a wide swath of companies, from major grocers and department stores to fast food chains, coffee shops, and other retailers.
Prop. 65, officially referred to as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires businesses with 10 or more employees to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning before exposing individuals in California to any listed chemical that may cause cancer or reproductive harm. Potential penalties for failing to comply can be steep—up to $2,500 per day for each violation. Non-compliant businesses may face enforcement actions, penalties, and attorneys' fees.
BPS was officially listed on the Prop. 65 list of chemicals in December 2023 and companies were given one year from the date of listing to begin providing clear and reasonable warnings before knowingly and intentionally exposing individuals to BPS.
BPS is commonly used as a coating on thermal paper—the kind you find in receipts. According to CEH and EHA, handling these receipts – as well as similarly coated tags, labels, and stickers - can lead to BPS exposure through skin contact and hand-to-mouth ingestion. Under Prop. 65, businesses are required to provide a "clear and reasonable warning" before knowingly exposing consumers to chemicals like BPS. CEH and EHA allege that no such warnings were provided.
As always, businesses are well-advised to consult with experienced counsel to navigate the evolving Prop. 65 landscape and minimize exposure to litigation and liability. We are closely following these issues and have significant experience representing clients that have received BPS Prop. 65 NOVs.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
