Prop 65

“These ‘bounty hunters’ often go after businesses that are actually in full compliance with the law, but fighting the lawsuit is more expensive that just settling the case out of court.”  LA Times

 

Maybe you’ve clicked on this page because you’ve noticed that our products are labeled with a warning.  How in the world could a garden rake or shovel be dangerous to my health?  The short answer is, according to our independent laboratory testing, there is zero chance that our Bully Tools grip is a threat.

 

Why then, the labeling?  Because the State of California passed a law that if any part of a product, from fishing lures to garden rake hand grips and beyond, contain certain chemicals – you MUST label it.  After researching the law, before it went into effect, we found that the amount of this particular chemical transferred to people by our grips exempted Bully Tools from labeling.  Actually, the testing of our part by an independent laboratory showed that the transfer amount to skin was zero parts per billion!

 

Again, why label the product if it is not a threat?  Simply, the law is written in such a way that a citizen (any citizen) can sue on behalf of the State of California and all legal fees will be paid.  Therefore, an incentive to sue has been created and reputable companies of all sizes are being sued with the hopes that the case will be settled out of court and the citizen will obtain a settlement, part of which goes directly to the State of California.  If Bully Tools would be sued, the cost to take the case to trial and prove that we are exempt from the labeling law on just ONE product would be over $250,000.  In reality, if we had to defend ourselves on every product we sell, our cost would be $40,000,000!  Or – we can put a $0.01 label on each product, confuse the public, but not get sued.

 

How do we know all of this?  We’ve been sued under PROP65 and, as stated, went to independent testing immediately in order to defend our products’ safety level.   After revealing the results to the claimant, we were presented with a very low settlement offer that included an agreement to label the products.  We haven’t had a lawsuit since.

 

Besides the legality headaches this has caused businesses, the law has done nothing to protect the health of the consumers.  Creating this incentive to sue and guaranteeing attorney fees has caused most businesses to simply place the warning label on the product.  How is a consumer to know if the product they are purchasing is truly a danger when virtually ALL products are labeled as a possible threat?  How is one to distinguish one from the other?

 

So now you know the basics of PROP 65.  Here’s a link to a more in depth article from the Center for Accountability in Science, that explains our shared position in greater detail: http://prop65scam.com/lawsuit-abuse/