An act to amend Section 25249.7 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to toxic substances.
Summary
AB 2577 revises the court-approval rules for settlements in private public-interest enforcement actions under Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The bill requires courts to make additional findings before approving a settlement, including that the settlement is in the public interest and provides a public benefit. For settlements involving alleged exposure to listed chemicals, the bill creates a presumption of public benefit if the settlement requires the defendant to reduce exposure below pre-settlement levels or to provide a previously missing Proposition 65 warning.
The bill also changes how attorney’s fees are handled when the Attorney General objects to a settlement’s fee award. If the court finds the settlement otherwise meets the required findings but the fee award appears unreasonable, the court must approve the settlement except for fees, notify the parties, and allow the plaintiff to submit additional support before the court may enter a fee award, capped at the amount originally proposed in the settlement. In addition, the bill preserves existing reporting, notice, and confidentiality rules, and it continues to require Attorney General service and public reporting of settlement information.
Impact
AB 2577 amends Health and Safety Code Section 25249.7, which governs Proposition 65 enforcement actions, civil penalties, settlement approval, and related reporting requirements. The bill would add a new judicial standard requiring a finding that settlements provide a public benefit and are in the public interest, and it would give courts a more structured process for reviewing disputed attorney’s fees in Proposition 65 settlements. It also reinforces the role of the Attorney General by requiring service of settlement papers and appellate briefs, and by authorizing public access to reported settlement information.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support and little opposition. The bill passed committee unanimously in both recorded votes, first 7-0 and then 12-0, and was recommended to the Consent Calendar before being re-referred to Appropriations. That pattern indicates the measure was generally viewed favorably and not especially controversial at the committee stage.
Contention
The main policy issue appears to be the balance between strengthening Proposition 65 enforcement and limiting settlements that may primarily generate attorney’s fees rather than environmental or consumer-protection benefits. Supporters are likely to favor the bill’s emphasis on public benefit, stronger judicial review, and Attorney General oversight of fee awards. Potential concerns would come from private enforcers or defendants who may view the added findings and fee-review procedure as increasing litigation burdens, delaying settlements, or giving the Attorney General greater leverage over negotiated resolutions.