What You Need to Know
- Key takeaway #1
In recent months, hundreds of businesses across California have been served with Notices of Violation of California's Proposition 65 for issuing receipts printed on thermal paper. - Key takeaway #2
All businesses in California utilizing thermal receipts, stickers and labels should take immediate steps to minimize their exposure to these NOVs. Businesses using these receipts should post warnings consistent with Prop 65 regulations or stop using thermal receipts, stickers and labels that may contain BPS. - Key takeaway #3
All businesses that have received NOVs should promptly respond to the NOV and consider their legal options with regard to whether to settle or defend in court.
Over the past several months, hundreds of businesses across California have been served with Notices of Violation (NOVs) of California's Proposition 65 ("Prop 65") for issuing thermal receipts at the register and using thermal labels and stickers in their stores. The targeted businesses include large and small retailers, restaurants, banks, gas stations, and grocers.
This sudden influx of NOVs comes after California recently added a new chemical—Bisphenol S, or BPS—to its official register of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm.
The NOVs allege that receipts printed on thermal paper, as well as thermal stickers and labels, contain BPS, and that by exposing their employees and the public to the BPS in receipts, labels and stickers without providing a warning, the businesses have violated (and are continuing to violate) Prop 65. The NOVs assert that the businesses are liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and attorney fees to-date, plus prospective fines and fees. If the targeted businesses do not settle with plaintiffs within 60 days of receiving an NOV, the plaintiffs can escalate the matter and bring a formal action in superior court.
Prop 65, officially referred to as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires businesses with 10 or more employees to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning before exposing individuals in California to any chemical on the state's list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. Potential penalties for noncompliance can be up to $2,500 per day for each violation. Each branch or store can give rise to a separate NOV and/or penalties. Noncompliant businesses can face enforcement actions, penalties, and attorney fees.
BPS, a chemical known to cause reproductive harm, was officially listed on the Prop 65 list of chemicals in December 2023. There is currently no established safe harbor level for BPS under Prop 65. Thus, any detectible quantity of BPS can trigger Prop 65 requirements. Once a chemical is listed under Prop 65, businesses have 12 months from that date of listing to eliminate exposure or provide clear and reasonable warnings. The first NOV for BPS in thermal receipt paper/labels was filed in January 2025 by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH). CEH contends that touching thermal paper results in BPS exposure through skin contact and hand-to-mouth ingestion.
Since January 2025, CEH has filed nearly a dozen NOVs identifying over 200 different companies who have allegedly failed to warn consumers pursuant to Prop 65 about the BPS in their thermal receipts, labels, and stickers. In recent months, the Plaintiff bar has escalated its enforcement efforts; there are now over 150 NOVs on file, with approximately half of them filed in June 2025 alone.As of the writing of this article, no settlements had been reported, and one lawsuit has been filed in the Superior Court for San Francisco, seeking inter alia civil penalties against each Defendant in the amount of $2,500 per day for each location utilizing thermal paper.
Given how recently BPS was added to the Prop 65 list of chemicals and the unique nature of the products at issue, this lawsuit and NOVs raise novel issues of law and fact. Moreover, without a safe harbor level specified by the State of California, we can expect that all parties will raise arguments about what exposure levels should be deemed harmful. A battle of the experts is sure to follow.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
