Legal Opinion
Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Arkopharma, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 28, 2003No. B157805PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KITCHING, J.
Introduction
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq., 1 known as Proposition 65) requires a product containing “ethyl alcohol in alcoholic beverages” to bear a warning that the product contains a chemical “known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity.” Defendants manufacture and sell liquid products containing herbal, botanical, floral, and similar extracts. These products also contain ethyl alcohol. Because defendants’ products are not fit for beverage purposes, they are not “alcoholic beverages” and do not…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rakestraw v. California Physicians' ServiceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- W.R. Filbin & Co., Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Metric Man Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Commercial Solvents Corp. v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Wah Shang Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
3Cited by3 opinions
- AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Sream, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2022
- Rallo v. O'BrianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020