Photo of Jasmine Wetherell

Jasmine Wetherell

Subscribe to Jasmine Wetherell's Posts

Jasmine Wetherell advises consumer goods companies, with an emphasis on serving food, dietary supplement, cosmetics/personal care, and cannabis businesses. She maintains a civil litigation practice focusing on consumer class-action defense and is highly experienced in defending claims brought under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law.

Contact:Read more about Jasmine Wetherell

A California state appeals court affirmed a bong maker’s win in a suit alleging it violated California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by failing to warn consumers that its products expose them to marijuana smoke that could cause cancer or reproductive harm.

Prop. 65 is a California initiative approved by voters in 1986 and enacted into law as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act that same year. The law prohibits knowingly and intentionally causing exposure to substances, including cannabis smoke and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), that are known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm, without first providing a clear and reasonable warning. California maintains a list of substances that trigger Prop. 65 warnings. To comply with Prop. 65, businesses must provide consumers with a compliant warning, unless they can ensure that their product does not expose consumers to a listed substance at levels that may cause cancer or reproductive harm.

Plaintiff-appellant Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. (EHA) filed a private enforcement action against Sream, Inc. (Sream) on November 12, 2020, alleging Sream violated Prop. 65 when Sream failed to provide a warning that their water pipe products—more commonly known as bongs—exposed consumers to marijuana smoke. EHA’s enforcement action sought “injunctive relief against Sream, from manufacturing, importing, selling, and/or distributing the products without a clear and reasonable warning.”Continue Reading California State Appeals Court Affirms Bong Maker’s Win in Prop. 65 Suit

As the cannabis industry and its associated sectors have gained increasing social and legal acceptance, these businesses have started to face an issue that has been plaguing traditional consumer packaged goods companies in the state of California for decades — Proposition 65 claims. This article warns companies in the cannabis industry to plan for an…

Perkins Coie and the National Cannabis Laboratory Council (NCLC) are proud to announce the release of “Standardizing Cannabis Lab Testing Nationally,” a white paper authored by numerous lab scientists and operators from around the country and edited by Perkins Coie attorneys.

As the legal cannabis market continues to expand, and potential federal legalization and inevitable…

As the cannabis industry and its associated sectors have gained increasing social and legal acceptance, these businesses have started to face an issue that has been plaguing traditional Consumer Packaged Goods companies in the state of California for decades—Proposition 65 claims.

Proposition 65 is a California initiative approved by voters in 1986 and enacted into law as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. The law requires California to publish a list of substances that are known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm. The law prohibits “knowingly and intentionally” causing exposure to one of the substances on the list without first providing a “clear and reasonable” warning. To comply with Proposition 65, businesses must provide consumers with a Proposition 65 compliant warning unless they can ensure that their product does not expose consumers to a listed substance at levels that may cause cancer or reproductive harm.Continue Reading Prop 65 Plaintiffs Set Their Sights on Cannabis Industry

California regulators have proposed new tailored Proposition 65 warnings for cannabis products. These proposals would create new warning requirements for such products sold to California consumers containing THC or exposing consumers to cannabis smoke and—taken together with other proposed regulations—indicate that the Proposition 65 landscape may see some significant changes in the coming months.

Read…

Perkins Coie is pleased to announce that its fifth annual Food Litigation Year in Review, in coordination with the expansion of the firm’s practice, has been broadened and renamed the Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation Year in Review. With this rebranding, we have featured a section on the latest cannabis litigation trends.
Continue Reading Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation Year in Review 2020

Proposition 65 warning requirements announced last year are set to be enforced starting January 3, 2021; if your business is selling cannabis products in California, now is the time to ensure that your labeling complies with state requirements.

Last year, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added Δ9‑tetrahydrocannabinol, better known as “THC,” to…

Perkins Coie’s Food Litigation 2019 Year in Review assessed key legal issues facing the food and beverage industry. Among these topics was cannabis, and especially hemp-derived CBD, in food and beverage products. The 2018 Farm Bill ushered in a new era for cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD). Following the law’s passage, products containing CBD have continued…