Comment Submissions - Modification to Proposed Amendments to Regulations Clear and Reasonable Warnings, Safe Harbor Methods and Content California Code of Regulations

I am writing to comment on the proposed amendments to the Proposition 65 regulations, specifically concerning the requirements for warnings on products sold exclusively online. As a representative of an online-only business, I strongly advocate that the current requirement for both on-product and online warnings be reconsidered for businesses solely operating on the Internet. Argument for Online-Only Warning Requirements: Redundancy and Clarity: The primary purpose of Proposition 65 is to ensure consumers are adequately informed about potential exposures to harmful chemicals. For online-only businesses, providing warnings on both the product display page and at checkout already effectively achieves this goal. These warnings are displayed prominently to ensure consumers are aware of potential risks before purchasing. Requiring an additional on-product warning for items never seen on a retail shelf adds unnecessary redundancy without enhancing consumer protection. Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: Implementing on-product warnings for online-only sales imposes additional costs and logistical challenges on businesses. These costs include redesigning product packaging and potentially creating separate inventory for California-bound shipments. These expenses can be significant, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, and they do not provide additional benefits to consumers who are already receiving clear warnings through the online platform. Alignment with Consumer Behavior: Online shoppers are accustomed to receiving critical product information digitally. By placing warnings on the product display page and during checkout, businesses ensure that consumers receive and acknowledge these warnings in a format consistent with their shopping behavior. This method of warning transmission is practical and aligns with how consumers interact with products in an online environment. Regulatory Clarity: Clarifying that online-only businesses can comply with Proposition 65 by providing digital warnings alone would eliminate confusion and ensure consistent application of the regulations. It would also prevent potential disputes and litigation over the interpretation of warning requirements for Internet sales, allowing businesses to focus on compliance and consumer safety rather than legal ambiguities. Conclusion: In conclusion, I urge OEHHA to consider amending the Proposition 65 regulations to specify that for businesses conducting internet-only sales, providing clear and reasonable warnings on the product display page and at checkout is sufficient to meet regulatory requirements. This approach maintains consumer protection, reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens, and aligns with modern e-commerce practices. Thank you for considering this perspective. I appreciate OEHHA’s ongoing efforts to refine and clarify Proposition 65 regulations in a manner that balances consumer safety with practical business operations.