Photo of Tiffanie de la Riva

Tiffanie de la Riva is an associate in the firm's Litigation group and advises clients in a variety of litigation matters. In her time at Stoel, she has assisted with cases involving products liability, consumer claims, unfair business practices, antitrust, employment issues, and other complex business litigation. She also has significant experience with various federal and state discovery issues. Tiffanie has participated in hearings before the U.S. Department of Agriculture and assisted, pro bono, on a civil rights claim before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

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