Comment Submissions - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Amendments to Article 6, Clear and Reasonable Warnings Short-form Warnings

My company complies with OEHHA’s 2018 regulation, which provided the option of a short-form warning label. Despite OEHHA’s statement at the time that those changes were being done to “provide certainty for businesses,” the new proposal would force my company to retool and reprint product labels, revise the website, update catalogs and instruct distributors and retailers. With a company with our type of volume this process would takes months and hundreds of thousands of dollars to complete (unlike CA the government won't send us a bail out). It would force us to make a choice on whether it makes sense for us to continue to sell our products in California. Overhauling the short-form warning requirements will not address the stated problem of “over-warning.” It will instead just create more confusion, more litigation and impose more costs on businesses. The proposed change has not been sufficiently justified and OEHHA has not acknowledged the significant costs being imposed to businesses like Yo-Zuri America and many others. OEHHA is creating more exposure to frivolous claims by private enforcers (commonly referred to as bounty hunters) about Prop 65 labeling. These bounty hunters frequently file illegitimate claims, yet companies like mine are forced to settle rather than challenge these claims due to the inordinate legal costs and time commitment associated with going to court. This proposal creates significant instability in an already unstable business environment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. My company respectfully urges OEHHA to withdraw the proposed rule.