Photo of Melissa A. Jones

Melissa A. Jones is a trial lawyer who provides experienced and practical counsel in complex business disputes, appellate matters and internal investigations. She has represented clients from a broad range of industries in complex civil litigation matters in both state and federal court, including the agribusiness, and oil and gas industries. Her practice includes an emphasis on Proposition 65 defense as well.

Melissa’s experience includes litigating claims for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, misappropriation of trade secrets, products liability, false advertising and unfair competition. Melissa has helped clients at every stage of litigation and has argued key motions and appeals, including several arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Melissa also regularly defends companies in litigation claims related to California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) and Unfair Competition Law (17200) and advises companies on Prop 65 compliance.

Click here for Melissa Jones's full bio.

The California Court of Appeal recently handed a victory to winemakers, ruling that a specific Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”) warning is not required regarding the presence of inorganic arsenic. The lawsuit, Charles et al. v. Sutter Home Winery et al., was originally filed in 2015 and alleged that wines made by over 15 named defendants exposed consumers to inorganic arsenic without the correct Prop. 65 warning.

Inorganic arsenic is a chemical identified by the State of California as a carcinogen and reproductive toxicant, and plaintiffs argued that defendants’ products required a specific warning to inform consumers about exposure to inorganic arsenic. Defendants prevailed on demurrer because the trial court found that the existing “safe harbor” warnings for alcoholic beverages complied with California’s Prop. 65 warning requirement as a matter of law, and that no additional warning for inorganic arsenic was required. In other words, the trial court determined that Prop. 65 does not require both a general warning and specific warning for an alcoholic beverage product. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed.
Continue Reading A Prop. 65 Win for Winemakers: No Separate Warning Required for Inorganic Arsenic