Dennis Raglin Quoted in Chemical Watch: “California Law Requires Prop 65 Settlements to Have ‘Public Benefit’”

Dennis Raglin was quoted in a Chemical Watch article titled “California Law Requires Prop 65 Settlements to Have ‘Public Benefit.’” The article discusses a new California law modifying how courts review and approve certain Proposition 65 settlements, adding new public benefit requirements and establishing a procedure for resolving disputes over plaintiffs’ attorney fees.

Raglin said that the legislation’s public interest and public benefit requirements may not have much practical effect because courts already consider these concepts when reviewing settlements.

The legislature may have wanted to make sure this language “was also included within the Prop 65 statute, but either way it restates existing law,” Raglin said. That said, he noted the measure could strengthen the state attorney general’s role in settlement reviews.

Under the law, settlements requiring defendants to reduce exposure to a listed chemical may qualify for a presumption that they provide a public benefit. Disputes over whether companies have achieved those reductions could strengthen “the AG’s ability to object to settlements and possibly force defendants to litigate, raising costs,” according to Raglin.

Disagreements could also arise over how parties demonstrate that exposure to a listed chemical has been reduced, he said, particularly in food cases where chemical concentrations may vary between production lots and different testing methods may yield different results.

Raglin also questioned how the legislation’s language that exposure reductions be measured against “the level that existed before the settlement” would be determined in practice. “How do we determine ‘the level that existed before’? What test method do we use? Can the defendant rely on averaging to get to the level of exposure?” Raglin asked. “This likely strengthens the hand of the AG’s office to impose its will and kill averaging exposure in food settlements.”

Read the article. Subscription may be required.

©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.