Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986: settlements: attorney’s fees

The law tightens judicial review of settlements in private Proposition 65 enforcement cases. It requires settlements to serve the public and makes fee awards subject to separate review when challenged by the Attorney General.

What the law does ​

• Requires courts to find that a private Proposition 65 settlement’s attorney’s-fee award is reasonable and appropriate under California law.
• Requires courts to find that the settlement is in the public interest and provides a public benefit.
• Presumes a warning-case settlement serves the public interest if it requires reduced exposure to the listed chemical or a previously missing compliant warning.
• Requires plaintiffs to provide evidence supporting every required court finding.
• Allows the Attorney General to participate in settlement-approval proceedings without formally joining the case.
• Requires courts, when the Attorney General objects only to attorney’s fees, to approve the remaining settlement if supported and separately consider further evidence on fees.
• Bars any later attorney’s-fee award from exceeding the amount proposed in the settlement.

Who it affects ​

• Private individuals and organizations bringing Proposition 65 enforcement actions in the public interest.
• Businesses and other defendants settling alleged Proposition 65 violations.
• The Attorney General and courts reviewing private Proposition 65 settlements.

Context ​

Proposition 65 prohibits businesses from knowingly exposing people to state-listed cancer-causing or reproductive-toxic chemicals without required warnings and restricts certain releases into drinking-water sources.