The Arsenic in Wine Class Action Dismissal – what it means

On March 23, 2016, the Superior Court for Los Angeles County entered an order dismissing Charles, et al. v. The Wine Group, et al., the last remaining class action lawsuit based upon the presence of minute quantities of arsenic in wine.  (For a discussion of arsenic in wine, see our earlier blog post A Layperson Looks At Arsenic in Wine).  Several other class actions in other states had earlier been dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiffs. 

The dismissal was at the pleading stage of the case, which means that there was no discovery and no trial.  The Court essentially said that even if everything the plaintiff’s claimed was true they didn’t have a case. That is what the appeal (already announced by the plaintiffs) is going to be all about. This case will be important to establishing the parameters of the safe harbor that compliance with Proposition 65 is supposed to provide to the wine industry.*

The Charles plaintiff’s claimed that the defendant wineries violated Proposition 65.  That is, of course, the law that gave rise to the proliferation of signs at every cash register at every store in the state stating: This product contains [or---This facility uses] chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.  Plaintiffs claimed that Prop 65 required the defendant wineries to disclose specifically that their wines contain small quantities of arsenic.

Those claims were rejected because plaintiffs did not allege any physical injury resulting from arsenic. Further, the plaintiffs conceded that “the danger of arsenic varies with the level of concentration (as it does with every toxin) and that arsenic can be present in safe drinking water, so long as the concentration level is low.”  In other words, these lawyer-driven claims didn’t show that any real harm existed from the low levels of arsenic that exist in almost all wines.

The court then said that Proposition 65 doesn’t require disclosure of the specific chemicals that give rise to the duty to post the general warning.  This is important because there are over 800 compounds “known to the State of California” to be potential carcinogens or teratogens, and the list is available on-line.  Can you imagine what a label listing 800 chemical compounds would look like?

Turning to specifics, the Judge noted that the list “includes, for instance ‘Aloe Vera, non-decolorized whole leaf extract,” “Aspirin,” “Oral Contraceptives, sequential,” ‘Salted fish, Chinese-style,” “Unleaded gasoline (wholly vaporized),’ ‘and “Wood dust.’”  The point the Judge made was that California law requires only the general warning.  At that point the consumer is the one responsible or obtaining information about minute (and here the parts per billion is truly minute) specific compounds “from the party responsible for the exposure after the warning, rather than through the warning.” 

The Judge then made the obvious point that requiring disclosure of specific compounds would make the warnings “too congested and cumbersome to read and understand.”  That was an understated observation by the Judge.

Wine does not include the “known to the State of California” warning.  Instead, all bottles carry the warning prescribed by both federal and California law:

WARNING: Drinking Distilled Spirits, Beer, Coolers, Wine and Other Alcoholic Beverages May Increase Cancer Risk, and, During Pregnancy, Can Cause Birth Defects.

The Court then held that the warning given is “a designated safe harbor provision that specifically applies to ‘wine’” and is sufficient by itself.  This is important to every producer in the wine industry because it is a guide to lawful conduct. Everyone wants to know how they can be complaint. The Judge here answered that question: make sure that the Proposition 65 warning requirements are observed.

For those reasons the Judge dismissed the complaint and told the plaintiff’s that there was no way they could amend it to actually prove a case.  That order can be appealed (and the plaintiff’s said that they will appeal it), but, in our view, the dismissal should be affirmed. Keep in mind that an appeal that results in the Judge’s order being affirmed would not be a bad thing because then the decision would have a broader precedential effect. The message to the plaintiff’s here is be careful what you ask for.

The bottom line is that the decision both terminates a meritless claim and provides an important precedent for the industry.  There are undoubtedly traces of some of the 800-plus compounds on the “known to California” list, other than arsenic, in many products, including wine.  Putting the prescribed warning on the bottle protects producers from having to disclose specific compounds and from future frivolous lawsuits. So make sure your labels are compliant!

Finally, when you raise your next glass, please remember to toast the Superior Court and this Judge for a sound, well-reasoned rejection of what is hopefully the last lawsuit based upon the presence of minute quantities of arsenic (or anything else) in wine.  Salut!

 

*n.b. Hinman & Carmichael LLP represented defendants in the arsenic cases, and served as regulatory counsel to the joint defense committee

  1. TTB Consignment Sales Investigations - What is Behind the Curtain of the TTB Press Releases?
  2. Heads Up! The ABC Is Stepping Up Enforcement Against Licensees Located Near Universities
  3. Coming Soon: New Mandatory Training Requirements for over One Million “Alcohol Servers” In California – September 1, 2021 will be here quickly
  4. 2019 Legislative Changes for California Alcohol Producers – a Blessing or a Curse?
  5. A Picture (On Instagram) Is Worth A Thousand Words
  6. Playing by the Rules: California Cannabis Final Regulations Takeaways
  7. Hinman & Carmichael LLP Names Erin Kelleher Partner and Welcomes Gillian Garrett and Tsion “Sunshine” Lencho to the Firm
  8. Congress Makes History and Changes the CBD Game for Good
  9. Pernicious Practices (stuff we see that will get folks in trouble!) Today’s Rant – Bill & Hold
  10. CBD: An Exciting New Fall Schedule… or Not?
  11. MISSISSIPPI RISING - A VICTORY FOR LEGAL RETAILER TO CONSUMER SALES, AND PASSAGE OF TITLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
  12. California ABC's Cannabis Advisory - Not Just for Stoners
  13. NEW CALIFORNIA WARNINGS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND CANNABIS PRODUCTS TAKE EFFECT AUGUST 30, 2018, NOW INCLUDING ADDENDUM REGARDING 2014 CONSENT AGREEMENT PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
  14. National Conference of State Liquor Administrators – The Alcohol Industry gathers in Hawaii to figure out how to enforce the US “Highly Archaic Regulatory Scheme.”
  15. Founder John Hinman Honored with the Raphael House Community Impact Award
  16. ROUTE TO MARKET AND MARKETING RESTRICTIONS - NAVIGATING REGULATORY SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS
  17. Alcohol and Cannabis Ventures: Top 5 Legal Considerations
  18. ATF and TTB: Is Another Divorce on the Horizon? What’s Going on with the Agency?
  19. STRIKE 3 - YOU REALLY ARE OUT! THE ABC'S STRICT APPLICATION OF PENALTIES FOR SALES TO MINORS
  20. TTB Temporarily Fixes Problem with Fulfillment Warehouse Tax Credits - an “Alternate Procedure” for Paying Taxes & Reporting
  21. CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE HAD ONE TOO MANY - THE FREE TRANSPORTATION DILEMMA
  22. The Renaissance of Federal Unfair Trade Practices - Current Issues and Strategies
  23. ‘Twas the week before New Year’s and the ABC is out in Force – Alerts for the Last Week of 2017, including the Limits on Free Rides
  24. Big Bottles, Caviar and a CA Wine Strong Silent Auction for the Holidays!
  25. The FDA and the Wine and Spirits Industry – Surprise inspections anyone?
  26. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: UPDATED REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  27. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  28. Soon to come to your Local Supermarket– Instant Redeemable Coupons of the digital age!
  29. The License Piggyback Dilemma – If it Sounds Too Good to be True, it Probably is
  30. A timely message from our Florida colleagues on the tied house laws, the three-tier system and the need for reform
  31. ABC Declaratory Rulings – A Modest Proposal Whose Time has Come
  32. More on FDA Inspections - Breweries, Distilleries and Questions
  33. WHY THE FDA IS INSPECTING WINERIES
  34. Senate Bill 378—The Proposed Demise of Due Process for Alcohol Licensees
  35. ABC Enforcement - Trends and Predictions
  36. The Corruption Chronicles – Volume One: A New Hope
  37. New Alcohol Delivery Oversight on the Horizon
  38. Michigan: Canary in the DtC Coal Mine?
  39. California ABC and Federal Credit Laws – Active Enforcement and Lots of Questions!
  40. Big Bottles For The Holidays - The Highest Calling Of The Winemaker's Art
  41. FINAL COMMENTS TO TTB NOTICE 160 DUE ON WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 7TH – WE ARE ASKING THE TTB TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD AGAIN TO ALLOW FOR INDUSTRY NEGOTIATION AND ALIGNMENT OF INTERESTS
  42. SONOMA COUNTY WINERY USE PERMITS, EVENT RESTICTIONS AND DTC
  43. New TTB Labeling Requirement Regulations: Out-of-State Bottling Is Not Created Equal and Consumers Right to Know Where the Grapes in their Wine Come from is Compromised
  44. Isn't A Written Agreement With A Distributor Worthless In A Franchise State?
  45. Crowd Funding for Alcohol Producers and Retailers – Down the Rabbit Hole with the Tied House laws
  46. Everything you ever wanted to know about the BPA Warning Statement but were afraid to ask
  47. AB 2082 - A Hunting License for Police and a Lethal Weapon for Politicians that Deprives Licensees of Currently Available Due Process Rights
  48. “Better Late Than Never”-- Judge in Illinois Dismisses 201 Sales Tax Cases against Retailers
  49. The Day the Music Almost Died: The Story of the BottleRock ABC Accusations, the ABC Appeals Board and a Victory for a Common Sense Interpretation of the Tied House Laws
  50. The Arsenic in Wine Class Action Dismissal – what it means
  51. Counterfeit or Artisanal Mexican Spirits? Pick your Poison, or your lime wedge
  52. Warning - CA ABC enforcement teams are on the prowl this weekend!
  53. RELIEF AT LAST! ILLINOIS MOVES TO FIX THE SALES TAX LAWSUITS AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE SELLERS BUT PROPOSES TO PENALIZE WINERIES AND RETAILERS THAT SHIP WITHOUT PERMITS
  54. The TTB Speaks on Category Management or, be Careful What you Ask for Because you might Get it!
  55. Hinman & Carmichael LLP Announces the Addition of Jeremy Siegel to its team of top beverage law lawyers
  56. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part IV
  57. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part III
  58. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part II
  59. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part I
  60. Hinman & Carmichael LLP is Hiring!
  61. John Hinman Presents NBI Webinar on Basics of Alcohol Beverage Law
  62. ABC DISMISSES SAVE MART GRAPE ESCAPE ACCUSATION BUT REFUSES TO ADOPT JUDGE’S DECISION FINDING NO STRICT LIABILITY FOR ABC VIOLATIONS
  63. Speakeasies are still with us, and proliferating!
  64. The War for the Soul of Sonoma County – the Winery Working Group Battle
  65. Santa Claus isn’t the only one coming to town this Christmas!
  66. Arizona's Direct to Consumer Shipping Rules - An Exercise in Complexity
  67. AB 780 - Social Media and the ABC: The California Legislative “Fix” that Fails
  68. Illinois Finally Offers Certainty and Relief for Victims of Sales Tax Lawsuits, but Prompt Action is Required in Pending Cases
  69. A Modest Proposal – Adopt the federal rule on Tied-House liability in California
  70. The Grapes Escaped - Why the First Amendment Matters
  71. Appellate Court Ruling Strikes Blow Against State’s Arbitrary Beer Label Ban
  72. Illinois Attorney General's Office Announces Intention to Dismiss False Claims Act Against Liquor Retailers
  73. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part III
  74. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part II
  75. Craft Beverages: Social Media Marketing the Effective and Compliant Way
  76. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part I
  77. A LAYPERSON LOOKS AT ARSENIC IN WINE
  78. The Biggest Retailer in the World vs. the TABC
  79. Rebecca Stamey-White presents Emerging Issues in Wine Law
  80. Top Beverage Alcohol Law Firm Adds and Elevates Partners
  81. Illinois Qui Tam Lawsuits—Private Enforcement Of a State Claim: A Bonanza For A Plaintiff’s Lawyer And A Rip-Off Of Retailers
  82. BOOZE RULES OF SOCIAL MEDIA: The Retailer Right to Pay Exception
  83. LIONS AND TIGERS AND TWEETS, OH MY!
  84. AB 2004: Brewer's Incremental Parity with Wine Makers
  85. Expanding, Proud Of It, and Wanting to Tell the World
  86. DC Weighs in Strongly on Third Party Marketer Delivery Services
  87. “Visual Links” between Beer, Wine and Spirits Labels and Retailers Ruled Unlawful in California — the tied house laws run amok
  88. Hard Cider Legislative Update
  89. New Marketing Model for New York – Lot 18 and the NYSLA
  90. Sweeping Changes in Proposed NYSLA Bill Include Expansion for Craft
  91. Minimum Resale Price Policies - How to Control Price-Cutters
  92. AB 2130 – Gloves Off?
  93. “Gluten-Free” Labels for Wine, Beer and Distilled Spirits. We’re Still Waiting.
  94. AB 1252: Sanitation Overkill?
  95. Growlers: Not Just for Beer Anymore
  96. California Legislative Roundup 2014
  97. Build It and They Will Come: Craft Products Get New Privileges in CA and TX
  98. AB 1128: Veto of the “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  99. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 2: California Appeals Court Vacates ABC’s Adoption of a Trade Advisory That Correctly Guided Licensee Conduct
  100. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 1: California Appeals Court Prohibits Alcohol Sales at Self-Check Out Stands