A stipulated judgment between the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) and the California Attorney General has limited enforcement of certain California Proposition 65 warning requirements for diethanolamine (DEA) in cosmetics and personal care products.

According to a Client Alert by Beveridge & Diamond PC published in The National Law Review, the agreement permanently bars state and private enforcers from pursuing Proposition 65 actions based on an alleged failure to provide cancer warnings for exposures to DEA in cosmetics and personal care products. The judgment resolves the PCPC's First Amendment challenge without the Attorney General conceding the underlying legal arguments.

The agreement follows a series of court decisions that have questioned whether California can require businesses to provide Proposition 65 warnings when the scientific evidence supporting a human health risk remains disputed. Courts have increasingly concluded that mandatory warning language may violate the First Amendment if it conveys a message that extends beyond the available scientific consensus.

Recent cases involving glyphosate, dietary acrylamide, and airborne respirable titanium dioxide reached similar conclusions, limiting California's ability to compel cancer warnings when evidence of human carcinogenicity is uncertain or contested.

In the DEA case, the PCPC argued that California's required warning overstated the scientific evidence supporting the chemical's listing under Proposition 65. The organization maintained that available research did not establish that DEA causes cancer in humans and cited scientific findings that characterized the evidence as limited.

While the stipulated judgment does not establish new legal precedent, Beveridge & Diamond said it reflects the practical impact of recent First Amendment rulings on California's Proposition 65 enforcement strategy. The agreement suggests regulators may be considering constitutional challenges when evaluating future warning disputes.

The ruling could have immediate implications for manufacturers, brand owners, suppliers, and compliance professionals managing pending Proposition 65 notices, litigation, settlement agreements, or supply chain documentation involving DEA, cocamide DEA, or related ingredients.

According to Beveridge & Diamond, companies facing Proposition 65 claims should also evaluate whether similar First Amendment arguments could apply to other listed chemicals where the scientific evidence supporting mandatory warning language remains disputed.