The California Supreme Court has placed some limits on the use of Proposition 65 health warnings by ruling that manufacturers of “bong pipes” used to smoke marijuana need not inform their customers about potential chemical exposure risks.
The high court in December left in place an appeals court decision that said Sream Inc. was not obligated to place Proposition 65 chemical warnings on its water-pipe products. The court affirmed a First District Court of Appeal opinion that concluded plaintiff Environmental Health Advocates (EHA) did not claim Sream’s products require marijuana to function.
“The trial court concluded that, under the facts as alleged by EHA, Sream's water pipe products were not subject to Proposition 65,” the appeals court said. “... We affirm.”
EHA did not argue that the water pipes led consumers to have direct contact with a substance that might cause cancer, according to the appeals court.
“Requiring a warning for possible indirect contact, depending on how a consumer chooses to use the product, would introduce confusion into that decision-making process,” the First District stated. “Consumers could, for example, interpret such a label on a water pipe to warn of direct exposure caused by the material the pipe is made of, or to warn of the effect of burning any substance on the pipe. Such confusion does not advance the purpose of Proposition 65.”
The 1986 proposition requires companies to place warnings on products or in locations that can lead to people having significant exposure to chemicals that cause cancer, reproductive problems or birth defects.
Sream attorney Catherine Johnson welcomed the high court’s decision as a reasonable approach for courts to deal with questionable lawsuits relating to Proposition 65 mandates.
“Sream sees the court’s action as a victory that could moderate attempts by plaintiffs to litigate Proposition 65 claims,” Johnson said in an email to the Northern California Record. “Plaintiffs have to contend with the fact that there is a chance that other companies, like Sream, will decide to litigate when claims of dubious merit are brought – and that courts will be receptive to such defenses.”