The Lester & Cantrell Legal Blog

Prop 65 Tylenol Warning – Does acetaminophen cause cancer?

Prop 65 Tylenol Warning - Gov. Newsom’s panel considers adding acetaminophen to Prop 65 list of dangerous chemicals

Prop 65 Tylenol Warning – Gov. Newsom’s panel considers adding acetaminophen to Prop 65 list of dangerous chemicals. Photo by Hal Gatewood on Unsplash.

The list of Proposition 65 carcinogens continues to grow. Now a panel appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom might add the common pain reliever acetaminophen to the mix. 

More than 900 chemicals are currently included in the state’s mandatory labeling law. This requires visible warnings for any products that may cause cancer or reproductive harm.

Available over the counter since 1955, acetaminophen is found in more than 600 medications including Excedrin, Tylenol and Midol. Often used as a fever-reducer, acetaminophen “can cause liver damage” if misused, according to the FDA. But according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, acetaminophen is not a carcinogen.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has weighed in on the Prop 65 Tylenol topic. It stated that labeling the medication as a carcinogen would be not only illegal, but “false and misleading.” 

Do you have questions about the Prop 65 Tylenol warning? Give us a call for a consultation.

Disclaimer

The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

California Solar Panel Law

The new California Solar Panel Law went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, requiring all California contractors and real estate developers to install solar panel systems on multi-family complexes and single-family homes up to three stories tall.

The California Solar Mandate 2020, which was set by the California Energy Commission in 2018 as an update to the Title 24 standard, aims to provide clean energy alternatives for the state while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The California Energy Commission hopes to reduce home energy use by 53 percent with this new mandate.

However, the new solar requirement is expected to add between $20,000-$30,000 to the cost of building new single-family homes, according to builder Meritage Homes. The California Association of Realtors has reported that the current median-priced home in California is roughly $615,000. An additional $20-$30K on top of the average home price is likely to further impact the state’s housing affordability problems, according to some critics. Still, the California Energy Commission claims that the 2020 California Solar Panel Law will save homeowners roughly $80 monthly in electricity costs.

Large California real estate developers, such as Lennar, have been installing solar panels on their homes since 2013. The cost of complying with the 2020 California Solar Mandate is more likely to impact smaller contractors, who may not be able to afford the upfront costs.

What do you think of the new California Solar Panel Law? Do you have any questions? Please give our construction attorneys a call for a consultation at (951) 300-2690.

Disclaimer

The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

AB 749 Prohibits “No Rehire” Provision in Settlement Agreements

AB 749 - 2020 California Laws

AB 749 – 2020 California Laws. Photo by Helloquence on Unsplash.

On Jan. 1, 2020, AB 749 went into effect here in California, setting new guidelines for “no rehire” provisions often found in settlement agreements.

Traditionally, many workers who settled claims against their employers were required to agree they would never again work for that company, or its affiliates.

Written by Assemblymembers Lorena Gonzalez, Mark Stone and Eloise Reyes, the law states that employers may no longer reject an application if the applicant had a prior settlement with the company.

A few important notes: If the employee was involved in a sexual assault or harassment incident, business owners can take advantage of the no-rehire provision. Additionally, businesses have the power to terminate employees with a no-rehire provision “if there is a legitimate non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reason for terminating the employment relationship or refusing to rehire the person.”

Read more about AB 749 at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB749

Disclaimer

The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

SB 208 to tackle those annoying robocalls

Those annoying robocalls may soon be less frequent, thanks to SB 208, also known as the Consumer Call Protection Act of 2019.

Those annoying robocalls may soon be more identifiable thanks to SB 208, also known as the Consumer Call Protection Act of 2019. Photo by Fezbot2000 on Unsplash.

Did you know that most people receive, on average, roughly 16 robocalls per month? And that according to the Federal Trade Commission, 70 percent of most consumer fraud scams start with these robocalls?

Those annoying robocalls may soon be more identifiable thanks to SB 208, also known as the Consumer Call Protection Act of 2019.

Under the oversight of the California Public Utilities Commission, SB 208 will require telecommunications service providers to implement authenticate calls made using an IPN (internet protocol network). This authentication will be achieved through both Secure Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) and Secure Handling of Asserted information toKENs (SHAKEN) protocols. 

Essentially, with SB 208, all outbound calls will need to be verified via digital tokens, and if the tokens don’t match, you will be alerted that the call is likely spam. Verizon has already implemented the technology for many clients in California. 

According to Governor Gavin Newsom, the new law will “identify those engaging in deceptive robocalls and protect Californians, especially vulnerable populations, from impostors using telecommunications to defraud consumers.”

The deadline for telecommunications service providers to comply with the new law is on or before January 1, 2021.

READ MORE

Disclaimer

The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

 

California School Start Times to Change with SB 328

California School Start Times to change with SB 328.

Working parents will likely be affected by a new law which will require California middle and high schools to begin at 8:30 a.m. or later by July 1, 2022. 

SB 328, written by Democratic Sen. Anthony Portantino, was drafted in response to studies that show later start times lead to higher student learning outcomes. (A 2012 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control found that only 21% of middle and high schools in California started at 8:30 a.m. or later.)

The new law is likely to create new challenges for working parents, who often drop their children off to school on the way to work. For families who have early work start times, the only option might be a carpool or bus service.

There is one caveat to the new law: the legislation exempts rural school districts due to more expensive transportation costs and logistical challenges. However,  the definition of “rural” is not explained in the law, and the U.S. Department of Education has three different classifications for rural schools.

SB 328 goes into effect January 1, 2020. Compliance will depend on the date on which a school district’s or charter school’s respective collective bargaining agreement that is operative on January 1, 2020, expires.

Learn More

Disclaimer

The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

Does your YouTube channel or website comply with COPPA?

Photo by Szabo Viktor on Unsplash

Starting January 1, 2020, all YouTube channels must begin complying with new guidelines for the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),  changing the setting of their videos or entire channel to either “made for kids” or “not made for kids.”

Many businesses use YouTube as a promotional tool and additional source of revenue, so it’s important to make sure that you flag your videos or channel appropriately to reflect the new guidelines. 

When deciding on whether your channel, website or app is made or not made for kids, consider the following:

  1. Are children 13 and younger the primary audience?
  2. Does your content include child actors, preschool entertainment, or songs and games targeted to children?

If not, your channel is not likely “made for children,” even though it may be appropriate for children. For example, cooking videos, how-to videos, etc., that do not include profanity or other inappropriate subject matter would still be labeled “not for children.”

If you flag your videos as “made for children,” several features will become unavailable on your YouTube channel:

  1. Collected data will be limited
  2. Some features like comments will not be available
  3. Personalized ads will not be available, so your ad revenue may decrease
  4. Info cards and end screens will not be available
  5. Channels won’t have stories, the community tab, notification bell, or “save to watch later” or “save to playlist” options.

Please note that COPPA applies to all YouTube channels, regardless of your location. YouTube recommends consulting a lawyer before making any major changes to your channel, especially if you have a lot of revenue at stake. Please call our attorneys for a consultation at (951) 300-2690.

Disclaimer

The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.