State of California
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1515 CLAY STREET, 20TH FLOOR
P.O. BOX 70550
OAKLAND, CA 94612-0550
Public: (510) 622-2100
Telephone: (510) 622-2142
Facsimile: (510) 622-2270
January 22, 2002
Reuben Yeroushalmi, Esq.
3700 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 480
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Proposition 65 Sixty Day Notice
Dear Mr. Yeroushalmi:
The Attorney General recently received a sixty-day notice from your office, on behalf of
the Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc., in which you allege that Beiersdorf Inc. and Beiersdorf
North America Inc. have failed to provide required Proposition 65 warnings for certain products
alleged to cause exposures to aniline, nickel, and formaldehyde.
These notices were served on December 31, 2001, some of roughly 3,500 notices served
on the Attorney General between December 21, 2001 and December 31, 2001.
As you know, the Legislature passed, and the Governor approved, SB 471, which adopted
certain changes in Proposition 65. These changes include the new requirement that notices
alleging violations of the warning requirement include a certificate of merit, which provides
certain information substantiating the claims made in the notice. This requirement took effect for
notices served on or after January 1, 2002. The Attorney General supported this legislation,
because it helps assure that noticing parties have adequately investigated their claims before
providing the notice.
In our experience, we have found that responsible groups doing this type of work had
engaged in an investigation similar to that required by SB 471, and therefore would not be
especially burdened by the new requirements. Unfortunately, some groups have not always
performed sufficient investigation before providing these notices. You have provided a large
volume of notices very shortly before the effective date of the new certificate of merit
requirements. We certainly hope that this was not done in an effort to avoid conducting the type