January 21, 2022

Volume XII, Number 21

Advertisement
Advertisement

January 20, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 19, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 18, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

California Battle of the Experts Still Brewin’ in Starbucks Trial

In April 2010, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) sued Starbucks Corp. and other coffee sellers alleging they violated California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, passed by California voters in 1986 as Proposition 65, by failing to warn consumers about carcinogens in their products as required under the act.  In July 2013, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle denied CERT’s motion for summary adjudication, saying the lawsuit would essentially boil down to a battle of experts.

Since then, the battle of the experts has continued to brew.  We are now a month into the bench trial that will culminate in Judge Berle’s ruling on the three affirmative defenses asserted by Starbucks and several other defendants:

  1. Forcing a Proposition 65 warning on coffee would be unconstitutional forced speech

  2. CERT’s claims are preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

  3. The acrylamide–the carcinogen at issue–present in the coffee posed no significant risk to consumers

This third defense has been the battle ground for the parties’ experts.  In early September, defendants called to stand two experts–a cancer expert that testified that studies show coffee consumption does not increase the risks of cancer and a toxicologist that testified that the proper way to evaluate the risk of acrylamide was by reviewing studies evaluating the impact of coffee as a whole, rather than on a chemical-by-chemical basis.

In early October, CERT responded with its own expert.  The plaintiff called to the stand Ronald Melnick, a retired NIH toxicologist, to testify that, despite defendants’ assertion that other compounds found in coffee would inhibit acrylamide’s carcinogenic properties, those compounds could do no such thing.

The other defendants in the lawsuit–over 70 various coffee producers and sellers–have stipulated to be bound by the result of the bench trial.  Who will be called to testify next and what will Judge Berle’s ultimate decision be in this java joust?  Stay tuned for more as it develops…

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 296
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Daniel Herling, product liability, attorney, Mintz Levin, Consumer Product Safety Privacy & Cybersecurity Class Action Health Care Enforcement & Investigations Product Liability & Complex Tort Complex Commercial Litigation
Member

Dan is highly regarded for his defense of product liability cases involving consumer products and deep knowledge of California’s consumer protection regulations and laws. He skillfully handles litigation, including class actions, around California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop 65), among others. He has served as a defense counsel in over 3,000 product liability cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, food, cosmetics, over-the-counter drugs, and food and products marketed as containing natural...

415-432-6103
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement