http://www.calbizlit.com/00129662.pdf (DEFENDING THE PROPOSITION 65 BOUNTY-HUNTER CASE
A DIFFERENT APPROACH- AN ADAMS | NYE | SINUNU | BRUNI | BECHT WHITE PAPER)
The authors discuss the unintended consequences of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 and it's impact on business. Is this proposition another example of dysfunctional government in California?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe article definitely portrays the act to be a scam to businesses operating in California. Companies are sued for using miniscule amounts of the carcinogenic materials found on the state’s list that often have no realistic effect on cancer. For instance, a chemical called “acrymalide” requires a person to eat 182 pounds of French fries daily in order to have a carcinogenic effect. Yet, countless businesses are demanded to display that the food items they sell may cause cancer. Notifications like these inflict unnecessary worry on consumers. Winning a lawsuit against the proposition is virtually impossible. Hence, companies settle their disputes by paying civil penalties, in which bounty hunters retain about a quarter of the reward. The proposition imposes frivolous lawsuits, and its rewards have yet to be recognized, with cancer rates remaining constant in California since its enactment in 1986. I concur with this argument that the proposition is defective and causes more troubles than advantages. There is a reason why other states are not as strict on these warnings, and the proposition causes extra hassle to out of state businesses, with some (such as Dunkin’ Donuts) choosing not to sell in California in order to dodge the potential lawsuits and penalties.
ReplyDeletehttp://prop65scam.com/