California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the agency that administers Proposition 65, has released a draft package of proposed changes to the Proposition 65 regulations. Although the proposal remains at an early stage, it would make some important changes for businesses—including a two-part warning approach for online sales, a possible QR code warning option, clarification of the naturally occurring exemption, and new warning options for many off-road vehicle and equipment parts.
OEHHA will host an in-person and online workshop to discuss these potential amendments on July 30, 2026. Public comments are due by September 7, 2026.
Online Sales: More Than a Website Warning
The proposal would create a more demanding approach for products sold through websites and digital applications, including web applications, mobile apps, and dedicated sales software.
A company selling a product online would need to provide both of the following:
- A warning on the product itself or its packaging.
- A warning shown before the customer completes the online purchase.
The online warning could appear on the product page, through a clearly labeled warning link on that page, or elsewhere in a way that customers see before checking out. A notice that a customer must search for the warning in general website content would not qualify.
This two-part approach could be particularly challenging for large retailers and e-commerce platforms. They may be able to display a warning online, but they often cannot readily confirm that every product offered through their systems carries a warning on the product or packaging. That gap could create exposure to “gotcha” claims: A plaintiff could point to an otherwise compliant online warning but allege a violation because the product delivered to the consumer did not bear the required warning.
The same problem runs in the other direction. A manufacturer may be able to commit to placing warnings on its packaging, but it may not control whether every retailer, marketplace seller, or e-commerce platform that offers its products displays a warning online before purchase.
The proposal could also complicate Proposition 65 settlements. A manufacturer may be able to provide meaningful injunctive relief by updating packaging, but may be unable to promise that every entity selling its products online will add and maintain a pre-purchase warning. Likewise, a retailer or platform may be able to update its online product pages but cannot necessarily ensure that every upstream entity has corrected product labels. These limits may make it harder for settling parties to agree on injunctive relief terms that fully address both parts of the proposed warning requirement and avoid potential objections to the settlement by the California attorney general.
QR Codes Would Become an Express Warning Method
The potential amendment recognizes QR codes as an acceptable way to deliver Proposition 65 warnings, alongside existing methods like signs, labels, and electronic point-of-sale notices. Under the new approach, a business could place a QR code on a sign, shelf tag, or product label, and scanning it would take the shopper to a webpage containing the full required warning. The code would need to be accompanied by the following statement letting shoppers know what they’re scanning: “Proposition 65 Warning for [chemical name]. For more information, scan the QR code.” This new option would sit alongside, not replace, the existing methods already available.
If a QR-based warning approach would be more practical for your product displays or packaging, this could give your company a clear, sanctioned path to use one, so long as both the warning language and the linked webpage content are set up correctly.
At the same time, OEHHA’s insistence that the statement placed alongside the Proposition 65 warning include the chemical name could be viewed as defeating the purpose of a QR code in the first place—moving warning information off the physical product and into a digital format that consumers can easily access.
Naturally Occurring Food Chemicals: New Constraint on an Existing Exception
Listed chemicals can occur naturally in foods because they are present in soil, water, and the surrounding environment and are absorbed by crops as they grow. Recognizing that naturally occurring contaminants are often unavoidable, OEHHA’s regulations provide an exemption for certain listed chemicals in food if a business can demonstrate that the chemical was not added by human activity and has been reduced to the lowest level currently feasible.
To establish the exemption, businesses typically must develop extensive scientific evidence, including laboratory testing, sourcing information, agricultural and environmental data, and expert testimony to prove the chemical is naturally occurring and not attributable to human activity.
The potential amendment does not fundamentally alter the naturally occurring exemption. It clarifies OEHHA’s position that a chemical is not necessarily considered naturally occurring simply because it originally came from a natural source, such as a plant. If businesses extract, isolate, or concentrate that chemical from the plant and incorporate it into a product, OEHHA may view the chemical’s presence as the result of human activity, even though the chemical itself has not changed. This clarification is particularly relevant for products containing botanical extracts, concentrates, purified ingredients, and other materials derived from natural sources.
While the amendment may provide additional clarity on OEHHA’s interpretation of “human activity,” it does not address the practical challenges companies face when attempting to establish the exemption. Businesses frequently struggle to obtain historical sourcing information, evaluate naturally occurring background levels, and assess potential anthropogenic contributions across supply chains. The proposal therefore clarifies one aspect of the exemption while leaving unresolved many of the evidentiary and compliance burdens that have historically limited its usefulness in Proposition 65 litigation.
New Safe Harbor Pathways for Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Parts
The potential amendments would give manufacturers of parts for off-road vehicles, construction equipment, mining equipment, farm equipment, and forestry equipment more flexibility in how they warn consumers. Right now, warnings for these products are displayed like any other consumer product. Under the proposal, companies selling these parts would have three ways to comply:
- Label the part itself using new warning content tailored to this category.
- Use the standard consumer product warning content and methods that already exist.
- Simply post a sign at least five inches by five inches, in 20-point type, at the point of sale or display.
If a company chooses the new part-specific warning content, it would need to include the Proposition 65 symbol, the word “WARNING” in bold capital letters, and specific wording noting that handling these parts can expose someone to chemicals “such as phthalates and lead,” along with a link to a dedicated informational webpage. If the warning is delivered through a posted sign, the chemicals named in that sign cannot be swapped out for different ones. If a company uses one of the other warning methods instead, it has more flexibility to substitute a different chemical name if phthalates and lead aren’t actually present at levels requiring a warning.
The potential amendment also spells out that certain items don’t count as “parts” for this purpose, including packaged service chemicals, tires, asbestos-containing components, carpeting, upholstery, textiles, and fabric.
Bottom Line
OEHHA’s proposal is only draft text, so no immediate changes are required. But it could materially reshape how companies deliver Proposition 65 warnings—especially in e-commerce—and it leaves important practical questions unanswered. Companies should begin assessing the operational changes that may be needed and consider whether the proposal can be improved before it becomes final. Businesses that could be affected should consider submitting comments by the September 7 deadline.
If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact one of the attorneys on our Environmental, Land Use & Natural Resources team.
You can subscribe to future advisories and other Alston & Bird publications by completing our publications subscription form.