A new lawsuit under California's controversial Prop 65 law has taken aim accusing the parent company of TJ Maxx and others of selling products that allegedly violate California's controversial Prop 65.
Emma Bell filed a new civil action against Vanderbilt Home Products LLC, Vanderbilt Imports LLC and The TJX Companies Inc. on March 9 in San Fransisco County Superior Court accusing them of violations under Proposition 65.
Bell's lawsuit specifically targets Vanderbilt Home Bathmats purchased at a TJX company. At the time of purchase, TJX and Vanderbilt did not provide a Prop 65 exposure warning for listed chemicals. According to the complaint, Bell sent the bathmat to a testing laboratory to determine the chemical content of the product. The laboratory allegedly determined that the product contains the chemical compound DEHP.
DEHP is a compound added to plastics to make them more flexible. The compound is considered by the state of California to increase the risk of cancer and damage to the male and female reproductive systems. The compound is also considered by the state of California to cause birth defects.
Bell is claiming that while bathmats can be made without DEHP, the products in question allegedly contain sufficient quantities so as to pose a risk to the individuals exposed through average use under California law. She asserts that the defendants knowingly exposed individuals to DEHP and continue to do so without reasonable warnings.
Plaintiffs claim the defendants failed in each case to provide sufficient warning labels on their products containing DEHP, despite being issued a "Notice of Violation" by the plaintiffs more than 60 days prior to the filing of the lawsuit allegedly in compliance with Prop 65. Bell is accusing the defendants of continued intentional negligence claiming they intended for people to come into contact with their products.
Violations of Prop 65 can be costly. With the burden of proof on defendant business owners a difficult mantle to wear, most cases settle out of court.
Critics question who the real winners are in these claims, asking if massive settlements under the law merely allow lawyers garner the spoils of relatively easy lawsuits to win. Annual reports from the California Attorney General's office in 2019, for instance, have shown 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 of the California EPA, while nearly $24 million went to attorney fees and costs.
Bell is seeking a trial by jury and is seeking civil penalties in the amount of $2,500 per day for each violation, plus court costs and legal fees.
Plaintiff is represented by attorneys Evan J. Smith and Ryan P. Cardona of the firm Brodsky and Smith, of Beverly Hills.