Scuba and Snorkeling Center hit with Prop 65 lawsuits over dry boxes allegedly containing BPA

A new civil lawsuit under California's controversial Prop 65 law claims a diving company has improperly polluted California waters by using plastic products containing BPA. 

Plaintiff Precila Balabbo filed suit in San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 8 accusing Scuba and Snorkeling Center Inc. (Scuba) of violating Prop 65 by the use, distribution and sale of Geckobrands Waterproof Dry Box, a product the lawsuit claims contains BPA, a compound listed by the state of California as a possible carcinogen.

The suit alleges that Scuba has allegedly refused to provide warning labels on any products containing BPA, as allegedly required by California's Prop 65. Balabbo is accusing the defendants of negligence claiming they intentionally continued to sell and distribute Geckobrands dry boxes without providing the required Prop 65 warning labels. 

Debate continues over whether such Prop 65 lawsuits, with their potentially costly settlements, generate any actual environmental benefits, or merely serve to generate fees for the lawyers who file the suits.

Violations of Proposition 65 can be costly. With the burden of proof on defendant business owners, most cases settle out of court.

Annual reports from the California Attorney General's office in 2019 show that of 1,000 notices of violations served, close to $30 million was paid to resolve claims either out of court or by consent, yet only $3.3 million went to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California EPA while nearly $24 million went to attorney fees and costs.

The lawsuit seeks a trial by jury and is seeking civil penalties in the amount of $2,500 per day for each violation, court costs and legal fees.

Balboa is represented by Evan J. Smith and Ryan P. Cardona, of the law firm Brodsky & Smith, Beverly Hills.