March, 14 2022, 03:45pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Rachel Doughty, Greenfire Law, PC, 510-900-9502; rdoughty@greenfirelaw.com (Counsel)
Stefanie Spear, As You Sow, sspear@asyousow.org, 216-387-1609 (Amicus & plaintiff in related case)
Michael Bender, Zero Mercury Working Group, 802-917-8222; mercurypolicy@aol.com (Amicus)
Dr. Astrid Williams, Black Women for Wellness, astrid@bwwla.com, (323) 290-5955 (Amicus)
California Court Rules Amazon Must Protect Consumers
WASHINGTON
The California Court of Appeals Friday ruled Amazon, the world's largest store, must comply with consumer protection laws including warning California consumers when products sold on its marketplace contain chemicals listed by California as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. As You Sow and other consumer advocates applauded the decision in a case involving skin lightening creams containing extremely toxic and illegal levels of mercury.
This ruling deals a major blow to Amazon, which has tried mightily and with some success to evade liability across the country for harm caused by products sold on its marketplace. (Read these two news stories -- Wall Street Journal, CNN -- on Amazon and the health impacts of skin lightening creams).
"Our position has always been that Amazon's online shelves must be subject to the same consumer protection laws as other businesses, full stop. Big is not an excuse to harm, and virtual shouldn't mean lawless. Amazon has the resources to comply with the law and it must do so," said Danielle Fugere, president and chief counsel at As You Sow. "Amazon is in a far better position than individual shoppers to ensure that the products it sells meet health and safety standards."
Amazon was sued in 2014 by Larry Lee, and again in 2018 by As You Sow, under the Toxic Enforcement Act, sometimes called Proposition 65, for exposing consumers to skin lightening creams which are illegal under state and federal law due to their dangerously high mercury content. Testing showed that Amazon allowed sales of more than a dozen brands of skin-whitening creams that contain mercury, at thousands of times the legal limit set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The lawsuits against Amazon allege Amazon knowingly exposed consumers to mercury by allowing the mercury-laden, skin lightening creams to be sold through its website without providing the legally required warnings to shoppers.
Amazon's primary defense was that it does not have an obligation to comply with the Act because health and safety compliance should be handled entirely by the third-party vendors on its online store -- no matter how small and no matter whether they are familiar with U.S. laws -- even if Amazon knows the products are dangerous. Amazon also argued that because it is an online platform, it should bear no responsibility for any harm to consumers from the dangerously high mercury products sold on its virtual shelves.
Lead counsel Rachel Doughty of Greenfire Law, PC, points to another recent ruling involving the sale of defective products on Amazon -- Bolger v. Amazon.com.
"This case represents a continuation of the sea change we are seeing in the law to finally reflect the reality of online marketplaces -- both legislatively and in interpreting existing laws," Doughty said. "The court looked at what voters intended when they adopted the Toxic Enforcement Act and determined it was that California consumers be warned of reproductive and cancer health risks prior to exposure, and found no basis to give Amazon a pass."
This decision is a major win for public health and the consumer advocates who have been working to ensure that products are safe for consumers.
"Our most recent testing report confirms that Amazon continues to flaunt the law by selling often illegal and dangerously high mercury skin lighteners around the world," said Michael Bender, director of the Mercury Policy Project, who along with Black Women for Wellness submitted an Amicus Brief in support of the lawsuit filed by Lee.
"As the Court of Appeal for the State of California First Appellate District shows, Amazon violated the Toxic Enforcement Act when, despite knowing that the skin-lightening creams at issue contained mercury, it took concrete actions to sell those products and ultimately exposed its shoppers to mercury without warning," Bender added.
The plaintiff was represented by Greenfire Law, PC and the Law Office of Jonathan Weissglass. The California Attorney General's Office, As You Sow, Black Women for Wellness, and Mercury Policy Project filed amicus briefs in the case.
Additional quotes on the court ruling:
Plaintiff Larry Lee said:
"I'm happy that Amazon shoppers will be informed of the risk of these dangerous products and avoid buying them and bringing them into their homes if they want to."
Dr. Astrid Williams, environmental justice program manager for Black Women for Wellness, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said:
"This is great news for communities of color, particularly Black women who use these skin lightening products. Black women carry a higher load due to toxins and environmental exposures and are often under-protected. We look forward to greater monitoring and regulation of beauty aids and personal care products."
Danielle Fugere, chief counsel at As You Sow, the plaintiff in a related 2018 mercury in skin lightening cream case against Amazon, said:
"Amazon, one of the world's largest companies, argued that it was not 'acting in the course of doing business' and should not be held responsible for the sale of these extremely toxic skin lightening creams on its website marketplace. California's Toxic Enforcement Act requires anyone acting in the course of doing business to warn Californians before they are exposed to carcinogens and reproductive toxins. Our position has always been that there is no exception for Amazon. The California Court of Appeals soundly confirmed our position on Friday."
As You Sow is the nation's non-profit leader in shareholder advocacy. Founded in 1992, we harness shareholder power to create lasting change that benefits people, planet, and profit. Our mission is to promote environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular