California Legal Brief

The Rule of The Chemical Toxin Working Group Inc. v. Best Naturals, Inc. is that Proposition 65 pre-suit notice requirements under California Code of Regulations, title 27, section 25903 are satisfied by substantial compliance rather than strict compliance, under circumstances where the notice serves the regulation's underlying purposes of allowing investigation, cure, and settlement of alleged violations.

Appeal from order granting judgment on the pleadings in Superior Court, Alameda County.

Defendant Appellants were Vita-Pure Inc. and Best Nutritionals LLC — dietary supplement manufacturers and sellers who received Proposition 65 pre-suit notice.

Plaintiff Respondent was The Chemical Toxin Working Group Inc. d.b.a. Healthy Living Foundation — a non-profit consumer health organization that sent the pre-suit notice alleging violations of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act.

The suit sounded in Proposition 65 enforcement action seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged failure to warn about chemical toxins in dietary supplements.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were defendants' alleged sale of dietary supplements containing lead without proper Proposition 65 warnings, following HLF's December 2021 pre-suit notice sent through counsel that identified HLF as the noticing entity and provided the law firm's contact information but did not specifically identify the name, address, and telephone number of a responsible individual within HLF.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that the pre-suit notice failed to strictly comply with the requirement to identify the name, address, and telephone number of a responsible individual within the noticing entity.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether Proposition 65 pre-suit notice requirements are satisfied by substantial compliance rather than strict compliance, and whether HLF's notice met substantial compliance standards.

The Appellate Court held that substantial compliance applies to Proposition 65 pre-suit notice requirements, and HLF's notice substantially complied by identifying the noticing entity, providing contact information through counsel, and serving the regulation's purposes of enabling investigation and settlement.

The case is inapplicable when the pre-suit notice fails to substantially serve the underlying purposes of allowing the alleged violator to investigate and cure violations or engage in settlement discussions, or when the notice provides no reasonable means of contact.

The case leaves open questions about what specific deficiencies would constitute failure of substantial compliance and whether different standards might apply to other technical requirements beyond contact information.