text:
Posts Tagged 'Proposition 65'
HomeTag: Proposition 65
ADA Lawsuits Attacking Website Accessibility Mount
Posted by: Sherron Wiggins
Over the past few months, we have seen an increase in pre-litigation letters and lawsuits charging Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") violations against commercial websites. These notice and demand letters and lawsuits allege that businesses' websites violate the federal ADA and similar state laws because they do not give full and equal access to individuals who have disabilities (including blindness, visual impairment and hearing impairment). ADA lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts throughout the country. No state is immune from such suits, and no business is too small to receive such ADA demands and claims.
One of the factors undoubtedly is the rise of law firms, and consortiums of firms, that specialize in filing such suits. The law firms often work with repeat-plaintiffs with disabilities, much like law firms that specialize in Proposition 65 private enforcement claims in California who work with repeat plaintiffs who purchase products that are then made the subject of notices of violations and lawsuits. The subjects of ADA and Prop 65 laws differ greatly, but the common element is that liability can be fairly easy to establish under both ADA and Prop 65, and both statutes allow awards of attorneys' fees to the law firms that can far exceed the damages awarded. Some of the law firms that commonly send ADA letters making demands and file lawsuits about website accessibility problems include Pacific Trial Attorneys (Newport Beach, CA), Nye, Stirling, Hale & Miller (Santa Barbara, CA), The Sweet Law Firm (Pittsburgh, PA), Block & Leviton, LLP (Boston, MA), and Carlson Lynch (Chicago, IL).
While there is no universally mandated standard, many large businesses and state and federal agencies follow WCAG 2.1, Level AA standards, which were created by the Web Accessibility Initiative, an internationally recognized organization. Generally, WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance requires that websites have text components for all images and videos such that assisted technology software may read this content to users. Among other requirements, the standards also require that websites have proper contrast between background images and overlapping font so that visually impaired individuals can use assisting software to be able to read and navigate the website.
To minimize the risk of receiving an ADA violation letter or being sued, we recommend you take at least the following steps:
Request that your digital team ensure and confirm that your website conforms with WCAG standards and, if so, what version/level as there were several earlier WCAG standards prior to the current WCAG version 2.1. To reduce the chances of such claims being made against your company, request your digital team to make your website WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliant and keep it that way until a more updated standard comes into general use.
Add a footer entitled "Accessibility" or "Accessibility Statement" to your website. The footer should preferably appear on the homepage and each webpage, preferably near your "Privacy Policy" and "Terms of Service" footers.
Add a webpage that is linked to the Accessibility Statement footer (e.g. https://www.conklelaw.com/accessibility-statement). This webpage should include an Accessibility Statement discussing your commitment to ensuring accessibility to all and providing contact information to report accessibility barriers and assistance with purchasing products or navigating the website. If you want help formulating your Accessibility Statement, seek qualified counsel to assist you.
Instruct your digital team to periodically review the website as it is updated to ensure there are no access barriers, that all newly uploaded content (including temporary pop-up offers, sale announcements, discount codes, rebates, etc.) complies with WCAG standards, and that all customer service representatives are trained to handle website accessibility inquiries. This training should include advising a responsible person in your digital team of any reported accessibility barriers, and being specifically trained to help disabled customers place orders.
Even if you have not taken these steps before receiving a demand letter or lawsuit from one of the ADA plaintiffs' lawyers, it's possible to reduce liability by taking prompt steps. If you received such a website accessibility notice of violation or legal complaint, contact qualified counsel promptly to assist in minimizing the impact and avoid similar future claims. All of the ADA violation matters that Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys have defended have been resolved fairly quickly with modest settlements. Others accused of website ADA violations have not been so fortunate, with some reporting having paid tens of thousands of dollars. CK&E attorneys are well qualified to help with all types of ADA and accessibility compliance concerns, whether for websites or physical facilities.
ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act, Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Regulatory Compliance, Sales, Technology
Access, Accessibility, ADA, ADA Demands, ADA Notices, Americans with Disabilities Act, Block and Leviton, Block Leviton, Carlson Lynch, Nye Stirling Hale and Miller, Nye Stirling Hale Miller, Prop 65, Proposition 65, Proposition 65 Notices, Proposition 65 Warnings, Sweet Law Firm, The Sweet Law Firm, WCAG, WCAG 2.1, WCAG 2.1 Level AA, Web Accessibility Initiative, Website Access, Website Accessibility, Website Accessibility Statement, Websites
2019 Was Another Lucrative Year For Prop 65 Bountyhunters
As recently featured in the Los Angeles Times, Proposition 65 continues to be big business for a handful of plaintiffs' lawyers and their select group of clients, but it's highly questionable how much benefit California residents and consumers receive.
According to settlement data released by the California Office of the Attorney General, in 2019, 909 businesses paid close to $30 million to settle Proposition 65 claims asserted against them. The average settlement payment was nearly $33,000. Of this staggering sum, almost $24 million, or 80%, went directly into the pockets of plaintiffs' lawyers. In sharp contrast, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which implements Proposition 65, received only about 11% of the settlement payments, or $3.3 million. The plaintiffs – so-called "private enforcers" – took a share of more than $2.7 million.
Proposition 65, otherwise known as California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, is a "right to know" law. Prop 65 requires businesses to provide "clear and reasonable" warnings for exposures to any one of the more than 900 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list that are known to cause cancer, reproductive harm or birth defects, before they can be sold in California. The obligation to warn can fall on all parties in the supply chain – manufacturers, producers, packagers, importers, suppliers, distributors and retailers. Businesses that fail to provide such warnings risk receiving a written "Notice of Violation", a precursor to a Proposition 65 enforcement lawsuit.
Violations of Proposition 65 can cost businesses tens of thousands of dollars in civil penalties, the noticing party's attorneys' fees, and defense costs. The deck is stacked against the business alleged to be in violation: In general, all the noticing party has to show is an exposure to a listed chemical. The burden of proof then shifts to the business to show that no actionable exposure has occurred, which is a difficult burden to meet under the law and can require costly expert witnesses. Accordingly, most Proposition 65 cases settle either out-of-court in a private settlement agreement, or in court through a court-approved consent judgment.
One chemical, di(2-ethylhexyl phthalate) or DEHP, accounted for more than half of the 2019 settlements. DEHP, a phthalate, is on the Proposition 65 list as a chemical known to cause cancer and reproductive harm. DEHP is commonly used in plastics to make them flexible. According to OEHHA, DEHP can be found in various types of plastic consumer products, including some shower curtains, furniture and automobile upholstery, garden hoses, floor tiles, coverings on wires and cables, rainwear shoes, lunchboxes, binders, backpacks, plastic food packaging materials, and medical devices and equipment. In 2019, businesses settled claims over DEHP exposure from such products as cosmetic cases, goggles, gloves, erasers, hangers and bedding storage cases. The phthalate diisonoyl phthalate (DINP) and lead are two other chemicals that were the frequent subjects of 2019 settlements.
Proposition 65 claims in 2019 were again dominated by a small group of plaintiffs' lawyers whose practices consist of sending out Notices of Violation and extracting settlements from businesses.
The private enforcers that have sent Notices of Violation this year include:
• APS&EE (represented by Law Offices of Lucas T. Novak)
• Anthony Ferreiro (represented by Brodsky & Smith, LLC)
• As You Sow (represented by Danielle Fugere and Chelsea Linsley of As You Sow)
• Audrey Donaldson (represented by Voorhees & Bailey, LLP)
• Berj Parseghian (represented by KJT Law Group PLC)
• Brad Van Patten (represented by Law Offices of George Rikos)
• CA Citizen Protection Group, LLC (represented by Khansari Law Corporation and Blackstone Law)
• Center for Environmental Health (represented by Lexington Law Group)
• Clean Label Project (represented by Davitt, Lalley, Dey & McHale, PC)
• Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. (represented by Yeroulshalmi & Yeroulshalmi)
• Consumer Protection Group, LLC (represented by Blackstone Law)
• Dennis Johnson (represented by Voorhees & Bailey, LLP)
• Ecological Alliance, LLC (represented by Custodio & Dubey LLP)
• Ecological Rights Foundation (represented by Law Offices of Brian Gaffney)
• Ema Bell (represented by Brodsky & Smith, LLC)
• Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. (represented by Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP and Glick Law Group)
• Environmental Research Center, Inc. (represented by Michael Freund & Associates, Law Office of Richard M. Franco and Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group)
• EnviroProtect, LLC (represented by Kawahito Law Group APC)
• Erika McCartney (represented by Environmental Law Foundation)
• Evelyn Wimberley (represented by Law Offices of Stephen Ure, PC)
• Gabriel Espinoza (or Gabriel Espinosa) (represented by Brodsky & Smith, LLC)
• Keep America Safe and Beautiful (represented by Custodio & Dubey LLP and Sy & Smith, PC)
• Key Sciences, LLC (represented by Kyle Wallace and Davitt, Lalley, Dey & McHale)
• Kim Embry (represented by Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP and Glick Law Group)
• Kimberly Ann Harrison (represented by Law Office of Rick Morin, PC)
• Laurence Vinocur (represented by The Chanler Group)
• Mary Elizabeth Romero (represented by Agency D&L)
• Maureen Parker (represented by Law Offices of Stephen Ure, PC)
• My Nguyen (represented by Seven Hills LLP)
• Paul Wozniak (represented by The Chanler Group)
• Precila Balabbo (represented by Brodsky & Smith, LLC)
• Public Health and Safety Advocates, LLC (represented by Law Offices of Danialpour & Associates)
• Ryan Acton (represented by O'Neil Dennis)
• Sara Hammond (represented by Joseph D. Agliozzo, Law Corporation)
• Shefa LMV, Inc. (represented by Law Office of Daniel N. Greenbaum)
• Susan Davia (represented by Sheffer Law Firm)
• Tamar Kaloustian (represented by KJT Law Group PLC)
• The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc. (represented by Khansari Law Corporation)
• Zachary Stein (represented by KJC Law Group APC)
Businesses should be aware of and ensure compliance with Proposition 65's requirements if their products are sold in California. In the event a Notice of Violation is received, businesses should contact qualified legal counsel. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are highly experienced in defending businesses against Proposition 65 claims as well as counseling businesses on compliance, in order to minimize the risk of enforcement actions.
2019 Prop 65 By the Numbers:
• 1,000: Notices of Violation Served
• 909: Number of Settlements/Consent Judgments
• $29.7 Million: Paid by Businesses to Resolve Claims
• $23.7 Million: Attorneys' Fees & Costs Collected by Noticing Parties' Attorneys
• $2.7 Million: Payments Collected by Noticing Parties
• $3.3 Million: Payments to OEHHA
• $32,706: Average Settlement/Judgment Amount
The number of enforcement actions in 2019 was not a fluke. Similar numbers have been accumulated in prior years. Just in the first few months of 2020, a considerable number of new enforcement actions have been pursued. 2020 Prop 65 enforcement actions will be reviewed in an upcoming blog post.
Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Technology
Agency D&L, Anthony Ferreiro, APS&EE, APS&EE LLC, Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group, As You Sow, Audrey Donaldson, Berj Parseghian, Blackstone Law, Bounty Hunters, Brad Van Patten, Brian Gaffney, Brodsky & Smith, CA Citizen Protection Group LLC, Center for Environmental Health, Chelsea Linsley, Clean Label Project, Consumer Advocacy Group Inc., Consumer Protection Group, Custodio & Dubey LLP, Danialpour & Associates, Daniel N. Greenbaum, Danielle Fugere, Davitt Lalley Dey & McHale PC, Dennis Johnson, Ecological Alliance LLC, Ecological Rights Foundation, Ema Bell, Environmental Health Advocates Inc, Environmental Law Foundation, Environmental Research Center Inc., EnviroProtect LLC, Erika McCartney, Evelyn Wimberley, Gabriel Espinosa, Gabriel Espinoza, George Rikos, Glick Law Group, Joseph D. Agliozzo, Kawahito Law Group APC, Keep America Safe and Beautiful, Key Sciences, Khansari Law Corporation, Kim Embry, Kimberly Ann Harrison, KJT Law Group PLC, Kyle Wallace, Laurence Vinocur, Lexington Law Group, Lucas T. Novak, Mary Elizabeth Romero, Maureen Parker, Michael Freund & Associates, My Nguyen, Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP, OEHHA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, O'Neil Dennis, Paul Wozniak, Precila Balabbo, Prop 65, Proposition 65, Public Health and Safety Advocates LLC, Richard M. Franco, Rick Morin, Ryan Acton, Sara Hammond, Shefa LMV LLC, Sheffer Law Firm, Stephen Ure, Susan Davia, Tamar Kaloustian, The Chanler Group, The Chemical Toxin Working Group Inc., Voorhees & Bailey, Yeroulshalmi & Yeroulshalmi, Zachary Stein
Amazon and Online Retailers Draw Proposition 65 Notices of Violation
Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney John Conkle was recently interviewed by chemical industry publication Chemical Watch in an article about the continued robust private enforcement of Proposition 65 against large retailers such as Amazon, Target, Walmart, CVS and Costco. John, a leading Prop 65 defense attorney who has counseled and defended companies throughout the supply chain, provided his expert insight in the article, which looked at the astronomical number of notices of violation being served on retailers by private enforcers.
In general, Proposition 65 enforcement has steadily risen over the years, reaching its peak in 2018 with 827 settlements and judgments totaling a record $35 million.
However, under the Proposition 65 regulations as amended last August, retailers are now legally responsible for compliance only under certain prescribed circumstances. In addition to having to provide Internet warnings for products sold online, a retailer is responsible for providing a warning if:
• the retailer is selling the product under its brand or trademark;
• the retailer knowingly introduced a listed chemical into the product or knowingly caused a listed chemical to be created in the product;
• the retailer covered, obscured or altered a warning label that was affixed to the product;
• the retailer received a notice and warning materials for the exposure but sold the product without posting or displaying the warning; or
• the retailer has actual knowledge of the potential exposure requiring the warning and there is no upstream entity that can be held liable for the violation. Actual knowledge means specific knowledge of the exposure received from any reliable source. If the source of this knowledge is a Prop 65 notice of violation, the retail seller is deemed to have actual knowledge five business days after receipt.
Despite the new regulations, retailers are continuing to be served with notices of violation. For example, while Amazon has received 1,027 notices of violation since the California Attorney General's Office began keeping track in 2000, most of those notices were served in recent years: 255 in 2016, 404 in 2017, 180 in 2018 and 57 so far this year. Private enforcers often include retailers in their notices to apply settlement pressure on manufacturers, distributors and other entities upstream in the supply chain, who are often required to enter into indemnity agreements with their retailers. Retailers should continue to be vigilant about having adequate indemnity agreements in place, ensuring that the products they sell have been tested for compliance with Proposition 65 and if warnings are required, to provide the appropriate warnings.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys routinely assist clients in ensuring compliance with Proposition 65 and other regulations, and defend businesses against Proposition 65 when a notice of violation is received.
Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Technology
Amazon, Notice of Violation, Prop 65, Prop 65 Warnings, Proposition 65, Proposition 65 Warnings
2018 Proposition 65 Trends Show Increasing Risk to Business
2018 turned out to be the most lucrative year ever for Proposition 65 attorneys and their clients, according to settlement data collected by the California Office of Attorney General (OAG). The famous "right-to-know" law has been on the books for more than 30 years, and requires businesses to provide warnings for exposures to any one of the more than 900 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list that are known to cause cancer, reproductive harm or birth defects – or face hefty civil penalty and attorneys' fees demands from the OAG, a district attorney or, far more commonly, private enforcers who initiate their claims by sending Notices of Violation.
Reviewing the recent trends, the indications are that the private enforcer claimants are becoming more efficient at extracting as much as possible from the unfortunate businesses who receive Notices of Violation. Even though California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is supposed to benefit from Proposition 65 recoveries, the chart below shows graphically that the vast majority of the money obtained by the claimants stays with the claimants – and most of it stays with the claimants' attorneys. In 2018, less than 12% of the money obtained by private enforcers went to OEHHA, and more than 79% went to the claimants' attorneys.
The claimants' increasing efficiency is shown clearly by the fact that, even though the number of Notices of Violation sent to businesses dropped by approximately 13% (2,710 in 2017 and just 2,364 in 2018), the number of settlements and judgments increased from 693 in 2017 to 834 in 2018. The average settlement shot up by 13%, from $38,395 in 2017 to $44,097 in 2018. This was buoyed in large part by a huge increase in the attorneys' fees and costs collected by plaintiffs' attorneys. In 2017, plaintiffs' attorneys took in $20.2 million in attorneys' fees and costs. In 2018, plaintiffs' attorneys recovered $29.1 million in attorneys' fees and costs.
The small circle of private enforcers making these claims remains an exclusive club. The claimants active in 2018 included: Alicia Chin; Amy Chamberlin; Anthony E. Held, Ph.D., P.E.; Anthony Ferreiro; APS&EE, LLC; As You Sow; CA Citizen Protection Group, LLC; Center for Advanced Public Awareness, Inc.; Center for Environmental Health; Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc.; Dennis Johnson; Donny Macias; Ecological Alliance, LLC; Ecological Rights Foundation; Ema Bell; Environmental Law Foundation; Environmental Research Center, Inc.; EnviroProtect, LLC; Erika McCartney; Evelyn Wimberley; Gabriel Espinosa; Hector Velarde; John Moore; Estate of Karen Charlene Calacin; Kim Embry; Kingpun Cheng; Laurence Vinocur; Maureen Parker; Michael DiPirro; Paul Wozniak; Peter Englander; Precila Balabbo; Russell Brimer; Safe Products for Californians, LLC; Sara Hammond; Shefa LMV Inc.; Susan Davia; The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc.; and Whitney R. Leeman, Ph.D.
Questions still remain as to the effects on the Proposition 65 industry of the OAG's amended settlement guidelines that went into effect October 1, 2016, and the new clear and reasonable warning requirements that went into effect August 30, 2018. We posited some theories in our previous blog post on the issue, but it's too early to tell the collective effects of these changes on the net Proposition 65 costs for businesses. One thing is for certain: The risks to businesses are increasing as Proposition 65 claimants are demanding more money than ever to resolve their claims. Absent any meaningful Proposition 65 reform, that trend will only continue. Unfortunately, Proposition 65 is notoriously difficult to reform because it requires a two-thirds majority approval of each house in the Legislature and any amendment must further the purposes of Proposition 65.
The best approach for businesses is to be proactive to try to meet the Proposition 65 challenges before they become very costly burdens. Aside from carefully reviewing your compliance, the most important factor in reducing costs of resolution is to act promptly when you receive a Notice of Violation to contact qualified counsel experienced in Proposition 65 issues. Conkle, Kremer & Engel keeps up to date on developments in Proposition 65 and provides expert guidance to clients to ensure compliance with Proposition 65 and other regulations.
2018 by the Numbers
2,364: Notices of Violation Served
834: Number of Settlements/Consent Judgments
39: Number of Active Prop 65 Plaintiffs
$36.7 Million: Paid by Businesses to Resolve Claims
$29.1 Million: Attorneys' Fees & Costs Collected by Plaintiffs' Attorneys
$3.3 Million: Payments Collected by Plaintiffs
$4.3 Million: Payments to State Agency
$44,097: Average Settlement/Judgment Amount
This blog post was coauthored by Desiree Ho.
Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Technology
Alicia Chin, Amy Chamberlin, Anthony E. Held Ph.D., Anthony Ferreiro, APS&EE LLC, As You Sow, CA Citizen Protection Group LLC, Center for Advanced Public Awareness, Center for Environmental Health, Consumer Advocacy Group, Dennis Johnson, Donny Macias, Ecological Alliance, Ecological Rights Foundation, Ema Bell, Environmental Law Foundation, Environmental Research Center, EnviroProtect LLC, Erika McCartney, Estate of Karen Charlene Calacin, Evelyn Wimberley, Gabriel Espinosa, Hector Velarde, John Moore, Kim Embry, Kingpun Chen, Kingpun Cheng, Laurence Vinocur, Maureen Parker, Michael DePirro, OEHHA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Paul Wozniak, Peter Englander, Precila Balabbo, Prop 65, Proposition 65, Proposition 65 Reform, Russell Brimer, Safe Products for Californians LLC, Sara Hammond, Shefa LMV Inc., Susan Davia, The Chemical Toxin Working Group Inc., Whitney R. Leeman
Prop 65: PILPs and ASPs and Fees — Oh My!
We previously blogged about Proposition 65 trends based on data about settlements and judgments collected and made public by the California Attorney General's Office. One trend we noted was the downward shift in civil penalty offsets known as "payments in lieu of penalties" (PILPs) or "additional settlement payments" (ASPs), due to recent amendments to the Proposition 65 regulations to rein in such payments. We'll refer to these offsets collectively as ASPs and look at how the amendments have affected the Proposition 65 "industry".
By way of background, Proposition 65 generally allows claimants (termed private enforcers) to keep 25% of the civil penalties as well as recover their attorneys' fees and costs in enforcement actions. The state's regulating agency, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) retains the other 75% of the civil penalties. While Proposition 65 authorizes penalties of up to $2,500 "per day for each violation," the reality is that civil penalties make up a very small portion of an overall settlement or judgment: The vast majority of the payment is earmarked as attorneys' fees and costs paid to the claimant's lawyers.
In the past, Proposition 65 private enforcers have often demanded additional payments that were treated as offsets to civil penalties. In other words, whatever the appropriate amount of civil penalties, they would carve out a portion of it as ASPs, because the claimants could keep the ASP portion entirely or direct it to a related entity – in addition to retaining their 25% share of the civil penalties. OEHHA does not receive any part of an ASP.
The practice became concerning enough that the Attorney General's Office amended the regulations, effective October 1, 2016, to impose additional requirements for ASPs. According to the Final Statement of Reasons for the rulemaking, the amendments were intended, among other things, to "ensure that [OEHHA] receives the civil penalty funds specified in Proposition 65, so that it has adequate resources for Proposition 65 implementation activities" and to "limit the ability of private plaintiffs to divert the statutorily mandated penalty to themselves or to third parties, in the form of [ASPs]."
The regulations as amended also reflect the Attorney General's position that ASPs should not be included in any settlement that is not subject to judicial approval and ongoing judicial oversight. The effect has been that, since 2017, only one private settlement agreement has included ASPs. Several others were reported in 2017 and 2019, but a review of the settlement agreements showed that the private enforcer in those cases erroneously reported its 25% portion of the civil penalties as ASPs.
While this can be seen as a bright spot, it may have the unintended consequence of lowering the incentive for certain private enforcers to settle early and privately, increasing costs to businesses who receive a Proposition 65 "notice of violation" – the official precursor to legal action. Indeed, since the amendments, we have continued to see a high number of court judgments contain ASP provisions, since those are still allowed under the amended regulations but subject to additional scrutiny by the Attorney General. In 2017, 90 of the 345 court judgments called for payment of ASPs (totaling $1,421,660) and in 2018, 109 of the 366 court judgments included ASPs (totaling $1,915,083). While not all plaintiffs are as aggressive about collecting ASPs, some NGO plaintiffs (such as As You Sow, Center for Advanced Public Awareness, Center for Environmental Health, Consumer Advocacy Group, Ecological Rights Foundation and Environmental Research Center) still show a strong preference for ASPs in resolving their claims. It is possible that OEHHA's move to restrict ASPs results in more lawsuits and fewer pre-litigation settlements, but may not ultimately reduce ASPs as much as anticipated.
More problematically, the amendments seem to have had the unintended effect of driving up the civil penalties and attorneys' fees and costs. The amended regulations provide that ASPs should not exceed the 75% share of the civil penalty paid to OEHHA. Previously, ASPs in both private settlements and judgments often exceeded the total civil penalties. The regulations now effectively place a cap on the amount of ASPs: ASPs that exceed 75% of the civil penalties may cause the Attorney General to file an opposition. So to maximize their own recovery private enforcers are now settling for what seems to be high civil penalties and ASPs that are a hair below 75% of that amount. Legally, that is a very doubtful practice – since ASPs are an offset to civil penalties, a defendant should pay the same total amount based on statutory factors, regardless of whether any part of the payment is earmarked as an ASP or if all of it is treated as a civil penalty.
One of the most stunning observations of the trends in Proposition 65 recoveries is that the attorneys' fee portion of Proposition 65 settlements has increased every year. As we will discuss further in a later blog post, in 2018 the total amount of attorneys' fees and costs collected by Proposition 65 plaintiffs shattered all records. Attorneys' fees made up 79% of all Proposition 65 recoveries in 2018 – up from 76% in 2017. The claimants' attorneys collected an astonishing $29,117,784 – an increase of nearly $9 million over 2017. It is not a big leap to infer that there is a connection between this and the changed regulations reducing claimants' ability to rely on ASPs – claimants may be increasing the attorneys' fees portion of their recovery to make up for perceived "losses" in ASPs.
What do the amended regulations and the settlement trends mean for businesses defending against Proposition 65 claims? For one, settling early and privately in an out-of-court settlement is a recommended strategy. ASPs should not be part of such early agreements. This means anyone receiving a notice of violation should act promptly to obtain qualified legal counsel, because private enforcers can sue in court after giving 60 days' notice. Certain defense strategies can be utilized to try to force an out-of-court settlement for a non-cooperating private enforcer, or at least make a court judgment less appealing to the claimant. Businesses should also take steps to minimize civil penalties and thereby ASPs by taking immediate corrective action as well as ensure that their legal counsel put together a defense that supports a minimal civil penalty recovery under the law.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are experienced at helping clients defend against Proposition 65 claims, resolving them cost-effectively and efficiently, as well as implementing proactive strategies to avoid Proposition 65 and other regulatory issues.
Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Technology
Additional Settlement Payment, Additional Settlement Payments, As You Sow, ASP, ASPs, California Attorney General's Office, Center for Advanced Public Awareness, Center for Environmental Health, Civil Penalties, Consumer Advocacy Group, Ecological Rights Foundation, Environmental Research Center, OEHHA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Payment in Lieu of Penalties, Payment in Lieu of Penalty, Payments in Lieu of Penalties, PILP, PILPs, Prop 65, Prop 65 Reform, Proposition 65, Proposition 65 Reform
Prop 65 Settlements Predominantly Benefit Claimants' Lawyers
Posted by: Desiree Ho
Over the last several years, the California Attorney General's Office (OAG) has released annual reports of Proposition 65 settlements through 2017. These reports make one thing clear – Proposition 65 continues to be a lucrative source for private Proposition 65 claimants and their lawyers, as the total settlement payments continues to rise through the years.
In the past, we noted that private Proposition 65 claimants and their lawyers collected at total of $17 million in settlement payments (comprised of civil penalties, "PILPs" or "Payments in Lieu of Penalties" [also known as "Additional Settlement Payments"] and attorneys' fees and costs) in 2013, and $20 million in 2012. The trend since then has been upward on all fronts, with one notable recent qualification regarding PILPs.
Proposition 65 contemplates that private claimants will share any civil penalties collected, with 75 percent going to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and 25% being kept by the private claimants. However, Prop 65 claimants are allowed an alternative remedy of PILPs, in which the claimants can pocket 100% of the PILPs and share nothing with OEHHA. All private claimants needed to do is establish that the PILP payments will go to fund some kind of activities with a nexus to the basis for the litigation, and show how those funds would be spent. Until recently, this was not a big obstacle for Prop 65 claimants. As can be seen from the OAG reports, many Prop 65 claimants are special-purpose entities that contend their own business of pursuing Prop 65 claims serves the environmental interests they are trying to protect through pursuit of more Prop 65 claims. As a result, these entities could pocket the PILP money to self-fund their own activities to make more Prop 65 claims. Being able to keep all of the PILP money, rather than the alternative of having to give 75% of civil penalties to OEHHA, undoubtedly made PILPs very attractive to Prop 65 claimants. Perhaps the only bright spot in the chart below is the significant reduction (by more than 50%) in PILP recoveries, which followed an amended regulation that went into effect on October 1, 2016 to tighten requirements for PILP settlements. We'll develop more on this amendment and its effects in a future blog post.
Finally, but clearly most significantly in terms of dollars spent on settlements of Prop 65 claims, private claimants' lawyers are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. As seen in OAG reports, and displayed graphically below, this attorney fee recovery constitutes by far the largest portion of Prop 65 settlements.
2014-2017 Summary of Proposition 65 Resolutions
(Updated from OAG Data as of 3/25/2019)
Since 2012, total settlement payments have increased substantially, reaching their high-water mark in 2016 but not declining very much in 2017 (2018 figures have not yet been fully released by OAG). Between 2014 and 2017, Prop 65 settlement payments totaled well over $25 million per year. Overall, the settlement payments are comprised of attorney fee recoveries to claimants' lawyers, PILP recoveries to claimants, and a smaller number of civil penalties that are shared 25% with claimants and 75% with OEHHA. In sum, every dollar shown in the chart below, other than the OEHHA portion shown in red, has gone to either the Prop 65 claimants or the claimants' lawyers:
When viewed graphically, it becomes all the more evident that the vast majority of Prop 65 settlements benefit claimants and their lawyers, not OEHHA or any other government agency charged with protecting the public. Questions must arise whether this was really the intent of Proposition 65, however beneficent was its purpose.
2016 was the biggest year for Prop 65 private claimants, according to data released by the California Attorney General's Office. In 2016, private claimants settled 760 cases, suing smaller businesses and larger entities like K-Mart, Michaels, Williams-Sonoma, and Twinings. The settlements for that year totaled over $30 million.
Of the $30 million collected in settlement payments in 2016, attorneys' fees made up more than $21.5 million, or 71.5% of all private settlements. In addition, while civil penalties amounted to just over $5 million, or 18% of all private settlements, private claimants can take 25% of any civil penalty assessed as a "bounty." In 2016, the civil penalties retained by claimants represented a sum of $1,361,500, or 4.51% of all private settlements. PILP money made up 10.42% of all private settlements. That means approximately $3.1 million landed in the hands of private claimants and their attorneys, in addition to the attorneys' fees and civil penalty bounties they received.
A few firms did particularly well that year. In 2016, The Chanler Group brought in 242 settlements for over $7.4 million. 83% of this figure, or over $6 million, was paid out in the form of attorneys' fees and costs. Brodsky & Smith brought in 99 settlements for nearly $2.5 million. 90% of the nearly $2.5 million, or $2.2 million, in settlement payments went to the lawyers as attorneys fees and costs.
Some claimant representatives obtained settlements that were not quite as disproportionately in favor of attorneys' fees and costs. For example, the Center for Environmental Health brought in 93 settlements in 2016, for a total of $4 million, broken down as follows: 11% as non-contingent civil penalties, 16% as PILP payments, and 74% as attorneys' fees and costs. Similarly, the Consumer Advocacy Group brought in approximately $4 million across 71 settlements, recovering 11% as non-contingent civil penalties, 14% as PILP payments, and 75% as attorneys' fees and costs.
The Environmental Research Center brought in 55 settlements for nearly $5 million, and the breakdown of payments was split more evenly: 36% as civil penalties, 31% as PILP payments, and 33% as attorneys' fees and costs.
In 2017, private claimants continued to pursue Prop 65 claims, settling or obtaining judgments in 693 cases. The recoveries totaled more than $26 million. As can be readily seen in the chart above, although the total claimants' recoveries were somewhat lower, they were on par with 2015 recoveries. Further, attorneys fees were proportionately even higher in 2017 than in preceding years, and the reduction was primarily in the PILP recoveries. Attorneys' fees made up more than $20 million, or 76% of all private settlements, and civil penalties retained by claimants represented an additional $1,431,496 or 5.4% of all Prop 65 recoveries.
If these trends continue, total Prop 65 settlement payouts will continue to rise, imposing the "unnecessary burdens for businesses" that "are cause for public concern," as the OAG noted in 2014. Conkle, Kremer & Engel routinely represents businesses against Prop 65 claims and lawsuits brought by private claimants, and works with businesses to develop compliance strategies to minimize the risk that they will be future targets of Prop 65 claimants.
Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Real Estate & Construction, Regulatory Compliance, Technology, Uncategorized
Attorneys' Fees, Brodsky & Smith, CAG, California Attorney General's Office, CEH, Center for Environmental Health, Chanler Group, Consumer Advocacy Group, Environmental Research Center, ERC, K-Mart, Michaels, OAG, OEHHA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Payment in Lieu of Penalties, Payment in Lieu of Penalty, Payments in Lieu of Penalties, Payments in Lieu of Penalty, PILP, PILPs, Prop 65, Proposition 65, Settlements, The Chanler Group, Twinings, Williams-Sonoma
New Law Requires Professional Cosmetics Labels to List Ingredients
Posted by: Eric S. Engel
Professional cosmetics sold in California must have full ingredient labeling in the same manner as consumer cosmetics, if the products are manufactured after July 1, 2020. The California legislature unanimously approved AB 2775, introduced by Assembly Member Ash Kalra. The bill was signed into law by Governor Brown on September 14, 2018 and enacted as new Section 110371 to the Health and Safety Code.
There are over 312,000 professional cosmetologists who are licensed to provide nail and hair services, most often in salons. The legislature found that "[i]nformation on the ingredients in professional salon products is essential to ensuring that workers and owners can make safer product choices and take steps to protect themselves and their customers against harmful exposures."
The new law will establish that professional cosmetics must have a label affixed on the container that satisfies all of the labeling requirements for any other cosmetic pursuant to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 301, et seq.), and the federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1451, et seq.). In other words, professional cosmetics must have the same ingredient labeling as consumer cosmetics.
The law already defines the term "cosmetic" as "any article, or its components, intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to, the human body, or any part of the human body, for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance." (Health and Safety Code Section 109900) The newly-enacted law introduces a new definition of "professional cosmetic," meaning a cosmetic "that is intended or marketed to be used only by a professional on account of a specific ingredient, increased concentration of an ingredient, or other quality that requires safe handling, or is otherwise used by a professional." In turn, "professional" is defined for this purpose as "a person that has been granted a license by the State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology to practice in the field of cosmetology, nail care, barbering, or esthetics."
There is arguably some ambiguity in that the new statute could be read to define a "professional cosmetic" in a circular manner as including a cosmetic that "is … used by a professional." Such an ambiguity is not likely a concern in this particular Act. This is because the effect of this new law is just to require the same type of ingredient labeling for both consumer and professional cosmetics, so it should not matter whether a licensed professional uses a resalable consumer or professional cosmetic for purposes of compliance with this law. However, if in the future the same definition of "professional" is incorporated into other enactments (much like "the definition of cosmetics" was incorporated here from a different statute), the circular definition may become more problematic.
The new law was enacted with widespread industry support, including the Personal Care Products Council, the Professional Beauty Association, California Chamber of Commerce, and Unilever. Many manufacturers have already listed product ingredients on their professional cosmetic lines in a manner consistent with that required for retail cosmetics, and so may already be in compliance. But manufacturers should review their professional cosmetic product labeling well ahead of the July 1, 2020 effective date in order to determine whether they comply. Further, manufacturers should be aware that there is no specific "professional cosmetic" exception to other warning label requirements, such as Proposition 65, which requires warnings if use of a product on a consumer in California would result in significant exposure to identified chemicals that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Manufacturers are well-advised to seek qualified counsel to review their circumstances before committing to potentially costly label changes, to be sure they comply with all legal requirements. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay up to date on important regulatory developments affecting their clients in the professional salon products industry, and are ready to help clients apply navigate the changing regulatory landscape in California and elsewhere.
Advertising and Labeling, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65
AB 2775, and Cosmetic Act, Ash Kalra, Consumer Cosmetics, Cosmetics, Cosmetologists, Cosmetology, Drug, Esthetics, Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, Food, Hair Salons, Health and Safety Code Section 110371, Ingredient Labeling, Ingredient Labels, Ingredients, Nail Salons, PBA, PCPC, Personal Care Products Council, Professional Beauty Association, Professional Cosmetics, Professional Salons, Prop 65, Prop 65 Warnings, Proposition 65, Salons
Cosmoprof North America Features Challenging CBD, Natural and Organic Product Lines
Posted by: Evan Pitchford
On July 29 and 30, 2018, Conkle, Kremer & Engel continued its annual firm attendance at Cosmoprof North America in Las Vegas, visiting with longtime and new clients and observing new brands and trends in the personal care industry. This year's edition of Cosmoprof had over 36,000 attendees with a record-breaking 1,278 exhibitors from 45 countries. CK&E attorneys attend to connect with clients and others in the cosmetics, personal care, packaging, labeling and professional beauty markets, to help clients secure distribution agreements, and to learn about the newest industry innovations and issues.
This year, trends included substantial expansion of the mens' care and beard care sector, along with CBD-infused cosmetics and hair care products and natural and organic hair regrowth formulas. Organic products sold in California must meet strict requirements, and Products with "natural" claims can present special challenges and risks, as CK&E has addressed in previous blog posts, such as "What are Natural Products Anyway?" A new twist has been recent growth (no pun) in "hair regrowth" products labeled as "natural" or "organic" . Those classes of products face special issues in addition to whether they can fairly be called "natural" or "organic," in that hair regrowth claims can at times run afoul of federal prohibitions on products that make drug-like claims without FDA approval, as well as federal and state labeling and advertising regulations. Finally, a new class of beauty and hair care products are based on Cannabidiol (CBD) content, taking advantage of increased acceptance of cannabis-based products. Yet CBD products continue to pose their own special issues, which will be the subject of an upcoming www.conklelaw.com blog post. CK&E is well-versed in counseling clients on all such issues, from brand protection, vendor and distribution issues to the latest CBD, natural and organic product concerns.
Lastly, foremost on the minds of many manufacturers and distributors who sell in California were the new requirements for Proposition 65, the well-known California law requiring "Prop 65" warnings for products which contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. New warning label requirements go into effect on August 30, 2018, which CK&E has already summarized on its blog. CK&E is actively advising manufacturers about the most efficient and effective ways to address the changes and avoid the risks of inadvertent violations.
CK&E's attorneys continue to pride themselves on keeping abreast of developments in the personal care market, along with assisting clients of all sizes with growth and protection of their brands and interests. CK&E is an active member of the Professional Beauty Association, the Personal Care Products Council, and other important industry trade organizations.
Advertising and Labeling, Beauty Industry, Brand Protection, California Organic Products Act, California Trade Regulations, Copyrights, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Trademarks
Brand Protection, California Organic Products Act, canabis, Canabis Oil, Cannabidiol, cannabinoids, cannabis, Cannabis Oil, CBD, COPA, Cosmoprof, Cosmoprof 2018, cosmoprof las vegas, Cosmoprof NA, cosmoprof north america, Distribution, Distributors, Hair Regrowth, Hemp, Natural, Organic, PBA, PCPC, Prop 65, Prop 65 Warnings, Proposition 65, Proposition 65 Warnings
It's Time: New Prop 65 Warnings are Required August 30, 2018
Posted by: Aleen Tomassian
In November 2017, we advised readers of Conkle, Kremer & Engel's blog that products sold in California would become subject to new Proposition 65 warning requirements beginning August 30, 2018. The new "Clear and Reasonable Warning Regulations" from California Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) significantly changed warning requirements for affected products that are manufactured on or after August 30, 2018. Among other changes, the new regulations affect the safe-harbor warning requirements that govern the language, text, and format of such warnings, and also impose downstream warning mandates through retail, online and catalog sales channels. Generally, some of the major changes that companies selling consumer products should be aware of include:
The "warning symbol" : A graphic "warning symbol" is now required on consumer products, other than food products. The "warning symbol" must be printed in a size no smaller than the height of the bolded word "WARNING," and should be in black and yellow, but can be in black and white if the sign, label, or shelf tag for the product is not printed using the color yellow. The entire warning must be in a type size no smaller than the largest type size used for other "consumer information" on the product, and in no case should be smaller than 6-point type.
Listing of a specific chemical: Warnings must now specifically identify at least one listed ingredient chemical for each toxicological endpoint (cancer and reproductive toxicology) and include a link to OEHHA's new website P65Warnings.ca.gov. Certain special categories of products, such as food and alcoholic beverages, have a specialized URL that must be used instead.
New warning language: Warning language must now warn of an exposure to a chemical or chemicals from the product, rather than just warn that the product contains the chemical or chemical. For example, " WARNING: This product can expose you to diethanolamine, which is known to the State of California to cause cancer. For more information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov."
Internet and catalog requirements: For internet sales, warnings must be provided with a clearly marked hyperlink on the product display page, or otherwise prominently displayed to the purchaser before completion of the transaction. It will not be sufficient if the product sold on the internet bears the required label, but the internet point of purchase listing does not. For catalog sales, a warning must be provided in a manner that clearly associates it with the item being purchased.
Short-form warnings: The regulations allow the use of certain abbreviated "short-form" warnings, which may omit the identity of any specific chemical, only if the warning is printed on the immediate container, box or wrapper of the consumer product or is affixed to the product. For example, " WARNING: Cancer – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov." If a short-form warning is used on the product, the same short-form warning may be used for internet and catalog sales.
The regulations seek to minimize the burden on retail sellers of consumer products, but there are some obligations affecting resellers. Manufacturers, producers, distributors, and other upstream businesses comply with warning requirements if they affix a clear and reasonable warning to the product, or provide written notice and warning materials to an authorized agent of a retailer, among other requirements. Retailers who receive products with a Proposition 65 warning on the label, or who receive proper notice that a warning is required, are responsible for placement and maintenance of internet warnings for those products before selling to consumers in California. Retailers should only be liable for Proposition 65 violations under limited circumstances, such as if they cover, obscure, or alter a product's warning label, or if they receive notice and warning materials but fail to display a warning, including catalog and internet warnings preceding consumer sales into California.
The particular requirements for each specific product can vary, so manufacturers and resellers are well-advised to seek qualified counsel to review their circumstances before committing to potentially costly label and website changes that may not comply with the new requirements. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay up to date on important regulatory developments affecting their clients in the manufacturing and resale industries, and are ready to help clients navigate the changing regulatory landscape in California and elsewhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H. Kim Sim of CK&E was interviewed and quoted extensively in ChemicalWatch about the difficulties manufacturers face in implementing the "very confusing and very complex" requirements of the new warning label requirements of Prop 65. For example, as Kim said, "The requirement that manufacturers name at least one substance for which they are providing warning has proven particularly challenging. Determining which one to include 'can be tricky for companies to decide', she said. 'Is one more scary to the public than another?'"
Advertising and Labeling, Alcoholic Beverages, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Green Chemistry Initiative, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Sales, Technology
Cancer Toxicology, Candidate Chemicals, chemicals, Clear and Reasonable Warning Regulations, Clear and Reasonable Warnings, Exposure, Notice of Violation, NOV, OEHHA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, P65 Warnings, P65Warnings, Prop 65, Prop 65 Warnings, Proposition 65, Proposition 65 Warnings, Reproductive Toxicology, Toxic Chemicals
CK&E Attorneys Lobby California Legislature with PCPC
Posted by: Conklelaw
On March 20, 2018 Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys Eric S. Engel and Aleen Tomassian helped the Personal Care Products Council fulfill part of its mission by organizing and executing an effective lobbying day to advance the legislative interests of the industry. Led by PCPC Senior Vice President Government Affairs Mike Thompson and PCPC Director of Government Affairs Karin Ross, a group of personal care product industry members, lobbyists and advisors heard presentations by pivotal regulatory agencies and then met with key legislators and their staffs to address issues of importance to the industry.
PCPC Chief Scientist Alex Kowcz seminar to Calif Legislative Staff
The PCPC held a luncheon at which it presented its first Legislator of the Year Awards to congresspersons who have been the most effective in advancing the important interests of both business and consumers in relation to personal care products. Legislative staff also received an educational presentation from PCPC's new Chief Scientist, Alex Kowcz, to help bring to Legislators the most current scientific information about issues affecting personal care products. After a long day of meetings, participants unwound and connected at an informal reception for legislators, the governor's office and administration officials at Ella, a popular restaurant near the State Capitol.
Eric S. Engel and Aleen Tomassian at PCPC Calif Lobby Day Reception
Some of the highlights of the 2018 PCPC California Lobby Day included a presentation by Meredith Williams, Deputy Director of Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and Rick Brausch, Chief of DTSC's Policy and Program Support Division, Hazardous Waste Management. The mission of the DTSC is the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program, directed toward advancing the design, development and use of products that are chemically safer for people and the environment. The aim is to reduce toxic chemicals in consumer products and create new business opportunities in green chemistry.
Dr. Williams advised the PCPC group that DTSC's SCP program intends to focus over the next three years on nail salon products, particularly to assure a safe working environment for salon employees as well as customers, such as by assuring adequate ventilation and safety equipment. Dr. Williams also noted that Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are not only within the ambit of California's Air Resources Board (ARB) as to their effect on the environment, but they are also within the scope of DTSC's authority when regulation of VOCs can meaningfully enhance protection of human health.
On February 8, 2018, DTSC released a draft 2018-2020 Priority Product Work Plan for public review, in which "Beauty, Personal Care and Hygiene Products" are identified as targets for possible regulation. Of some concern to PCPC, the Priority Product Work Plan includes DTSC's interest in broad classifications of chemicals without defining exactly which chemicals in what formulations are of concern. For example, DTSC's Priority Product Work Plan identifies oxybenzone, BPA, DEA, formaldehyde, phthalates, parabens, triclosan, titanium dioxide, tolulene and VOCs as classes chemicals being considered for possible regulation, but there are a great many specific chemicals, formulations and uses within such classes, and not all of them are likely to be of concern to DTSC. PCPC expressed its concern that broad classifications can cause confusion among manufacturers and consumers, and unnecessarily inhibit product development and sales. For example, oxybenzone (aka Benophenone-3) is one of just 16 chemicals approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as safe and effective for use as an ultraviolet (UV) filter to achieve broad-spectrum sun protection. The health benefits of effective UV sunscreens are well documented, but the broad suggestion of "endocrine toxicity" or "dermatoxicity" in DTSC's identification of oxybenzone is on shaky scientific footing. Dr. Williams noted that the 2018-2020 Priority Product Work Plan is only in draft form, and that DTSC recognizes the broad nature of the chemical groups identified and is working on identifying specific chemicals of concern rather than entire classes of chemicals.
DTSC's Richard Brausch spoke of the hazardous waste logistics issues facing the personal care product industry, affecting the entire supply chain from manufacturers to retailers. The issue often occurs when products are returned from retailers, and questions arise as to whether they may be regarded as hazardous waste if they are no longer considered fit for regular sale, such as when new product labeling is introduced. Issues can arise as to who has responsibility for proper transportation and disposal of the products, whether by sale in secondary markets, repair or refurbishment, donation to charities or recycling. It is notable here that improper transportation and disposal has led some local authorities to sue retailers and wholesalers for failing to use hazardous waste transporters. That in turn has caused retailers to impose anticipatory disposal charges on manufacturers and wholesalers for a wide range of products. PCPC therefore supports Assembly Member Bill Quirk's introduction of new legislation, AB 2660, which places the onus on the disposal company to determine the correct method of transportation, as that is not within the expertise expected of retailers.
The overriding hazardous waste concern is that California uses an "aquatic toxicity" (aka "fish kill") test that is grossly out of alignment with federal law, and which results in most cosmetic products being characterized as hazardous under California law. The "fish kill" test is exactly like it sounds – it tests only whether quantities of the subject product added to a water tank will kill fathead minnows. The test is not regarded as especially accurate, notably because high viscosity products that are otherwise harmless can kill the fish by clogging their gills. Further, the test presents a significant problem for the personal care products industry, which has taken a strong stand against animal testing, so manufacturers generally do not conduct this "fish kill" test on finished products. PCPC therefore advocates a more modern approach to accomplish the same goal, by use of a more recently developed fish embryo test (FET), in which live fish are not killed.
An interesting side note is that SB 1249 was introduced by Senator Cathleen Galgiani to prohibit importation or retail sale of any cosmetic that was developed or manufactured using animal testing after January 1, 2020. While PCPC takes a strong stand against animal testing, it could not support the bill as written because it included no exception for products marketed in countries (notably China) which require that products be subject to animal testing. Rather, the PCPC has been working to obtain an amendment of the proposed legislation to make it conform to that of the European Union, which has strong anti-animal testing regulations but allows for accommodations to make products acceptable for sale in China.
Dr. Michael Benjamin, Air Resources Board Chief of Air Quality Planning and Science spoke about the substantial product data that ARB had collected from product manufacturers selling in California, through extensive annual surveys conducted over the past three years. From that data, ARB is working to identify trends in emissions of VOCs. Of particular interest is a February 15, 2018 publication in the academic journal Science of a study of VOC emissions from consumer products. The Science publication (Volatile Chemical Products Emerging as Largest Petrochemical Source of Urban Organic Emissions, by Brian C. McDonald, Joost A. de Gouw, Jessica B. Gilman and others), Science Vol. 35, Issue 6377, pp. 760-764 (Feb. 16, 2018)) caught popular attention and some popular press because it found that vehicle emissions had become so much cleaner over the past decades that they were now responsible for less than half of VOC emissions. Overall, the total volume of VOCs had diminished greatly. Further, while the Science article authors made many assumptions on which they based their assessment of VOC contributions of consumer products, Mr. Benjamin pointed out that ARB has the actual data from its industry surveys to determine whether the author's assumptions and conclusions are well founded. ARB therefore intends to do its own assessment of the points made in the Science article to determine what further action is appropriate.
PCPC's first Legislator of the Year Awards were presented to Senator Ed Hernandez, Assembly Member Bill Quirk and Senator Galgiani. In his comments to PCPC members, Senator Hernandez emphasized, "We want business to stay here in California, we want businesses to be successful. There's a lot of people here that purchase your products." Assemblyman Quirk addressed the need for common sense limitations on legislation such as Proposition 65, remarking that "[Someone] sent me a package of Coors beer with a Prop 65 warning on it. We now have cases in court where people want Prop 65 warnings on coffee. * * * One study after another shows it's not a health risk. * * * We've got to do something about this. I'm definitely going to be working as time goes on in the legislature so that we don't end up with things that are harmless being labeled." Finally, Senator Galgiani observed that good legislative policy is not a zero sum game: "It's not about having a proposal that's just good for the environment or just good for business but we can meet in the middle and have regulations and policies that work for both sides and help everybody involved. It's just harder to get there – it takes more work, it takes more time and it takes patience, and all of you [at PCPC] have done a great job."
See the Beauty Industry Report article on the PCPC California Lobby Day here.
California Air Resources Board, California Trade Regulations, Green Chemistry Initiative, Proposition 65, Safer Consumer Products Regulations
Air Resources Board, Animal Testing, Aquatoxicity, arb, Assembly Member Bill Quirk, Benophenone-3, Bill Quirk, BPA, Broad-Spectrum Sun Protection, California Air Resources Board, CARB, DEA, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Dermatoxicity, DTSC, Ed Hernandez, Endocrine Toxicity, FET, Fish Embryo Test, Fish Kill Test, formaldehyde, Hazardous Waste Disposal, hazardous waste regulation, Hazardous Waste Transportation, No Animal Testing, Not Tested on Animals, oxybenzone, Parabens, PCPC, PCPC California Lobby Day, Personal Care Products Council, phthalates, Priority Product Work Plan, Prop 65, Proposition 65, Proposition 65 Warnings, Safer Consumer Products, SCP, Senator Ed Hernandez, SPF, Sun Protection, sunscreen, Sunscreens, Titanium Dioxide, tolulene, triclosan, Ultraviolet, UV, VOC, VOCs, volatile organic compounds
Page 1 of 3 123


The weeks are quickly flying by and the holidays are only around the corner. I have been having too much fun putting together and sharing some holiday looks with you guys - if you missed my first holiday look; read all about it here.
Those of you who have seen my first post, I am clearly obsessing over this feathered shrug by bebe. It's the perfect seasonal piece for every holiday look! It's so versatile and you always look super fab while wearing it!
I paired this shrug with a fun asymmetrical midi skirt; which I absolutely adore. This skirt is super fashion-forward, unique and chic! Creating a fabulous look from head to toe - it wouldn't be complete without some snake-printed booties and color popping tassel earrings by Sequin. Lastly, accessorize with black pieces such as these versatile sunnies (that look great on every outfit!) and a black purse.
Hope you enjoy the rest of your week babes!


text:
Moonbirds Surpasses $500 Million in All-Time NFT Sales
beincrypto.com 01 July 2022 10:04, UTC
Moonbirds continues to reach new milestones despite the steep decline in overall monthly sales volume in the non-fungible token (NFT) space.
Moonbirds has made a valuable contribution to the adoption of NFTs by the mainstream since its April launch, reaching a total sales volume of approximately $555.17 million, according to Be[In]Crypto Research.
This landmark comes as a massive boost to the NFT space, which has seen a continuous decline in monthly volumes throughout 2022.
Some of the digital collections showing the most sales volume include Axie Infinity, CryptoPunks, Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), Mutant Ape Yacht Club (MAYC), Art Blocks, NBA Top Shot, Otherdeeds, Azuki, CloneX, The Sandbox, Cool Cats, and VeeFriends.
Source: NFT All-Time Collections Rankings by CryptoSlam
New to Moonbirds?
Launched on April 16, Moonbirds is a non-fungible token project by Proof, a media startup that was founded by venture capitalist Kevin Rose.
Mirroring other projects, the Moonbirds collection comprises 10,000 owl avatars. Within seven days of its launch, Moonbird #2642 sold for $1 million (then around 350 ETH) on the NFT marketplace, OpenSea, on April 23.
Much of the project's success has been attributed to the backing of one of the most strident voices in the decentralized finance (DeFi) sector, Kevin Rose, the success of his previous project dubbed "Proof Collective", and the taste of NFT collectors for digital collectibles on a success trail.
That said, when looking at the increasing number of unique buyers on the day of launch, the surge in sales led to ascending total transaction counts totaling 9,734 unique buyers, and 11,550 transactions.
By the end of April, unique buyers were 11,741 and corresponded to a total transaction count of 15,909. Moonbirds' sales volume was around $485.22 million.
Source: Moonbirds April 2022 Sales Chart by CryptoSlam
There was an 89% increase in average sale value from $30,499.98 in April to $57,838.41 in May. By the end May, Moonbirds' sales volume was in the region of $56.1 million.
Source: Moonbirds' May 2022 Sales Volume Chart by CryptoSlam
At the time of writing, Moonbirds' had 450 unique buyers, had been involved in 608 transactions, and had an average sale value of $25,232.03 for June 2022.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Jason welcomed Gill Greaves, founder of Streetbikes, to London to meet with the Transport Minister Robert Goodwill MP.
Streetbikes, based in Milnsbridge, is a community charity that has recycled and given away 4,000 bikes in 5 years, organises community bike rides and runs mixed ability and women only cycling clubs. Gill and Jason discussed long term funding and expansion plans for the successful Streetbikes model.
For more information on the work Streetbikes do please click here.


text:
$packageName = 'telegram.install'
$installerType = 'exe'
$url = 'https://updates.tdesktop.com/tsetup/tsetup.0.9.15.exe'
$checksum = '8df8faf85fb89d7bd74cc1202321eed295e47a0f'
$checksumType = 'sha1'
$silentArgs = '/VERYSILENT /SUPPRESSMSGBOXES /NORESTART /SP-'
$validExitCodes = @(0)

Install-ChocolateyPackage -PackageName "$packageName" `
                          -FileType "$installerType" `
                          -SilentArgs "$silentArgs" `
                          -Url "$url" `
                          -ValidExitCodes $validExitCodes `
                          -Checksum "$checksum" `
                          -ChecksumType "$checksumType"

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Programmes & Curriculum
Former Faculty Members
The Department of History was started in 1967, two years after the establishment of the University in 1965.The Department aims at making it is a Centre of Excellence for study and research in the field of Humanities & Social Sciences.The major objectives of the Department are:
To introduce the students with major trends of changes and developments in the life and culture of the humanity.
To acquaint the students to the emerging branches of historical studies and thought, and creation of a new generation of historians.
To undertake extensive research on various aspects of history of Assam and the North-East India.
To research on India's inter country socio-economic and political relationships with the neighbours.
Shri Shri Aniruddhadeva Chair
The University established the Shri Shri Aniruddhadeva Chair in recognition of the service and contribution the Department with an objective to study the religion and ethno-history of this region. Thus, the Chair has become an eminent centre for socio-cultural studies. It organizes the Birth Anniversary of Shri Shri Aniruddhadeva and special lectures by scholars and social workers every year.
The Siu-Ka-Pha Chair
The Government of Assam was desirous of establishing a Chair in the name of Siu-Ka-Pha, the first Ahom king in medieval Assam and the founder of the Ahom kingdom in the 13th Century and has chosen Dibrugarh University as a place for establishing the Chair. This Chair is an academic unit established in the Department of History, Dibrugarh University to strive for research in the field of history of medieval and modern North-East India to unravel the multifaceted socio-economic, cultural and political processes which shaped the identity and history of Assam and North-East India. For more details click here.
Buddhist Study Centre
The UGC sanctioned a grant for the establishment of Buddhist Study Centre during the 12th plan period.The Centre is attached to and developed by the Department of History. It is engaged in research on Buddhism, Buddhist Communities of North East India and Buddhist culture. It organizes seminars, lectures by eminent Buddhist scholars.
Prof. Jahnabi Gogoi Nath [Chair Professor, Shri Shri Aniruddhadeva Chair] [Chair Professor i/c, Siu-Ka-Pha Chair]
Prof. Nirode Boruah [On extraordinary leave to serve as the Vice-Chancellor of Majuli University of Culture, Assam]
Dr. Chandan Kr. Sarma [Head of the Department]
Dr. Bipul Chaudhury
Dr. Kakoli Gogoi
Dr. Siddhartha Pait
Dr. Rashmi Rekha Bhuyan
Lalbiakthang Hrangkhol
Guest/Visiting Faculty
Professor B. D. Chattopadhyaya
Professor Basudev Chatterji
Professor Rajan Gurukkal
Professor Bhairavi Prasad Sahu
Professor Ranjan Chakraborty
Professor S. Z. H. Jafri
Professor Sajal Nag
Professor Om Prakash Jaiswal
Professor Rajat Dutta
Ex-Faculty
Dr. Manilal Bose
Dr. Swarnalata Baruah
Dr. Pratap Chandra Choudhury
Dr. Nilanjan Goswami
Dr. Shrutidev Goswami
Dr. Monorama Sharma
Dr. S.K.Basu
Dr. Shiela Bora
Dr. Anowar Hussain
Dr. Dambarudhar Nath
Mr Vaijayanta Kumar Dutta
Dr Arupjyoti Saikia
Programmes and Curriculam
The Department of History offers Ph. D. ,M.Phil and two year Post-Graduate programmes. The Department has restructured its syllabus in accordance with the UGC model curriculum syllabus and UGC NET syllabus. The department has also introduced compulsory papers such as Gender History, Environmental History etc. to make the students acquainted with the latest areas of research. The major thrust areas of the department are political, social, cultural, and religious history, history of environment, ethnicity, and gender history. Regional historical developments are given importance.
Research Projects Undertaken by the Department
Sl. No. Name of the principal investigator Title of the project Sponsoring authority Remarks
1. Prof. D.Nath MayamaraVaishanavSamajar Than Satra ShriShriAniruddha Chair Completed, 2010
2. -Do- Community and Culture Formation in North East:A case Study of the Matak- Morans UGC Completed, 2011
3. -Do- Religious Traditions of Assam, 16th -20th Century UGC, under SAP-DRS(I), effective from April, 2009 Ongoing, 2009-2014
4. -Do- Select Bibliography of the Religious Beliefs and practices in Assam Under SAP Completed, 2011
5. -Do- The MayamaraSatra: Institutional Structure and Social Relationships- A study in Historical Perspective ShriShriAniruddhadeva Chair Completed,2012
6. -Do- Archaelogical Remains of Religious Traditions in Assam- Sivasagar District Under SAP Completed, 2012
7. -Do- Archaeological Remains of Religious Traditions in Assam- Barpeta District Under SAP Completed, 2013
8. -Do- Archaeological Remains of Religious Traditions in Assam- Lakhimpur District Under Sap Ongoing
9. -Do- The Satra Institution of Assam- A study of the Changing Interface of the Satra-Society Relationship in Historical Perspective MaulanaAbulKalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies, Kolkata. ( 2009-2012) completed.
10. Do From Community to Caste: A study of the Nath Yogis of Assam in Historical Perspective UGC Completed
11. Prof. J. Gogoi Nath Society and Patriarchy in Colonial Assam: A study of Changing status of women in the 19th and early 20th century. UGC Completed
12. Dr. Rajib Handique
(now on lien) Ecology and Society in Post Colonial Period with special reference to Upper Assam. UGC Completed
The Department of History publishes a referred research journal annually entitled Journal of Historical Research since 1974.
Students are asked to prepare syllabi related projects to develop a greater understanding of regional issues in terms of historical dimension.
National and regional level seminars and workshops are organized by the department time to time to encourage the creative and innovative potentials of the students.
Student Study circle of the Department of History, Dibrugarh University
Competency Development Session (CDS) for students
Coaching for Exams like NET, SET
Historical Movie screening
Late RajanikantaChowdhury Memorial Award for the student securing the highest grade in the post-graduate course in the department of History.
Debates, Group discussions and Quizzes are held time to time for all-round development of the students.
Field-trips and study-tour for students.
Telephone (office): 0373 2370266
Dr.Vaijanta Kr. Dutta
Dr. S. K. Basu
Dr. Munilal Bose
Dr.(Mrs) Swarnalata Baruah
Dr. S. D. Goswami
Dr.(Mrs) Shiela Bora
Dr. Biswajit Baruah
Neo-Vaishnavite Movement in Assam: Phases and Transformation, 25th to 26th March 2010.Sponsored by UGC under SAP
Religion, Society Ecology in North- East India, 4th -5th March, 2011. Sponsored by UGC under SAP
Interface between Religion and Society Relationship in North- East India 28th -29th September, 2012. Sponsored by UGC under SAP
Changing Relationship between Religion and Society, 9th -10th Nov, 2012 Sponsored by MAKAIS
Shared History Contested Spaces: Rethinking Territoriality in South Asia on 29th -30th November, 2010, Sponsored by PANOS South Asia and Dibrugarh University.
Understanding Agrarian History of North East India, in 2012, Sponsored by ICHR.
'Cinema and Society: understanding Cinema of North east Indiain Historical Perspective', 5th May 2012, Sponsored by ICHR.
History Curriculum in B.A Semester Programme underDibrugarh University,15th Oct. 2011.
Workshop on 'Reading Manuscripts in Medieval Assam', 16th -17th March, 2013 sponsored by Dibrugarh University.
Invited Lecture on 'Religio-Philosophic Structure of Assamese Neo-Vaishnavism' by Prof K.N.Phukan,5th June 2009.
Invited Lecture on 'From Bhakti to Sakti: Questions of the Sikh Transformation' by Prof. Himadri Banerjee, 2010.
Invited Lecture on 'Folk Religion and Oral Traditions of Lower Assam 16-20th century' by Prof N.C.Sharma,22nd February,2010
Invited Lecture on 'Religion and Reality: An Inquiry into the Hindu Cults of Assam' by Sivanath Barman, 2010.
Invited Lecture on 'Women in History: Gender, Religion, State and Society in Medieval and Pre-Modern Assam' by Prof. AparnaMohanta, 2010.
Invited Lecture on 'Temple Management of Assam: A Historical study' by Dr. Gajendra Adhikary,2010.
Professor S. K. Sinha, Department of Anthropology, Gauhati University delivered a lecture on 'Anthropology on Religion' on 16th November, 2015 at ShriShriAniruddhadeva Chair.
Professor Chandan Kumar Sharma, Department of Sociology, Tezpur University delivered a lecture on the topic ' Discourses on Damps and Displacements in North East India on 5th February, 2016.
Professor Sajal Nag, Department of History, Assam University delivered a lecture on 'Religion and Environment' on 11th February, 2016.
Professor O.P. Jaiswal, Former Professor of Ancient History and Archaeology, Patna University delivered a series of lectures on Buddhism during the period 7-11 March, 2016.
Professor ArupjyotiSaikia of IIT Guwahati delivered the first S. D. Goswami Memorial lecture on 'The River, Floodplains and Modern Assam: An Environmental History of the Brahmaputra' on 14th March, 2016.
Professor BasudevChatterji, formerly Chairman of ICHR, New Delhi delivered a series of lectures during the period 14-17 March, 2016.
Professor IshratAlam of Aligarh Muslim University delivered 12th H.K. Barpujari Endowment Lecture on 'Pre-Modern Technological Traditions in India: A Historical Comparative Study' on 13thMay , 2016.
Board Of Studies on History for CBCS in B.A Programme underDibrugarh University on 24 October, 2016..
The Buddhist Study Centre organized a symposium on 'Parallel Thoughts: Buddhism and Modern Science' on 8th November, 2016. The theme address was delivered by Geishe Dorji Damdul, director, Tibet House, New Delhi.
Library cum Reading Room.
Computer Lab with internet Connection.
Audio-visual Aids.
Museum.
Conference Hall.
Seminar Hall.
Four lecture Halls.
Research scholars' Room.
Student Common Room.
Students' Feedback.
Grievance Redress Cell.
In recognition of the contribution of the Department in the field of Socio-cultural studies, the UGC has recommended it as a Department for UGC's Special Assistance Programme (SAP) in the year 2009. After successful completion of SAP (DRS-I), the Department has been now doing extensive work under DRS-II on the theme titled 'Religious Traditions and Society in Assam, 16th-20th Century.'
The UGC sanctioned a grant to the Department of History for establishment of Buddhist Study Centre during the 12th plan period.


text:
Political Dataviz: Executive Orders Issued by the President in their first 100 Days in Office (The Economist)
Source: The Economist, Joe Biden is taking executive action at a record pace, Daily Chart, January 22, 2021, https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/01/22/joe-biden-is-taking-executive-action-at-a-record-pace.
Joe Biden is signing executive orders at a record pace. In his first two days in office, he has signed 17 executive orders; more executive orders than Donald Trump did in nearly two months in office. Compared to his old boss, Barack Obama, he has surpassed him by a couple, but it took Obama at least 50+ days to do so.
Per The Economist,
In office, though, Mr Biden has been moving at a blistering pace. Within hours of being sworn in, he had recommitted America to the Paris climate accord; restored ties with the World Health Organisation; lifted a ban on travellers to America from several Muslim-majority countries; promised to protect from deportation "dreamers", brought to America illegally as children; extended temporary freezes on household evictions and federal student-loan payments; mandated mask-wearing in airports, public transport and in federal buildings; and halted construction of the US-Mexico border wall. If that were not enough, he also did some redecorating. A portrait of FDR, famous for his productivity early in his term, now hangs on the wall of the Oval Office.
The chart below shows the pace President Biden has started on Day One in office. Compared to many of his predecessors from 1953-2021, he is on pace to break the record of executive orders signed in their first 100 days in office.
Donald J Trump, Donald Trump, Economist, Joe Biden, Political DataViz, POTUS
@datafam, DataViz, Donald J Trump, Executive Orders, Joe Biden, Political DataViz, POTUS, The Economist
2 responses to "Political Dataviz: Executive Orders Issued by the President in their first 100 Days in Office (The Economist)"
Justin Sias (@JustinSias)
Makes perfect sense for two reasons.
Reason 1: Trump refused to accept his defeat and barely allowed any access to Biden's transition team and essentially NO assistance, from sharing daily intelligence briefs to even the most basic things like allowing access to secure phone lines. Biden was at least a month behind where he'd have liked to be when he finally got that orange-skinned squatter to leave. The country was/is in the throes of a pandemic and people and businesses are hurting financially, so Biden had to act quickly and decisively.
Reason 2: He still could have done almost all of it through Congress, but a huge majority of the Republican Party has chosen to go along with Trump's lie that the election was rigged and Biden's win wasn't legitimate (it was), and therefore even though they are a narrow minority in both chambers, they have enough clout to drag out the process of legislating and approving bills for time-critical matters like financial stimulus, unemployment extension, ordering and allocating vaccines and PPE, getting loans to small and middle sized businesses so they don't fold while Congress is endlessly debating minutiae, undoing the last guy's bonehead moves like leaving the Paris climate accords and the WHO, and a few dozen other things that desperately need to get done in order to minimize any coming economic recession, minimize the number of Americans who end up homeless, hungry, or you know DEAD because they didn't get help in time.
Republicans are completely out of touch with reality at the moment. Two-thirds of the country supports Biden's actions, with 75% or greater support for some of the specific actions especially regarding economic stimulus and rapid vaccine deployment. Yet the recent comprehensive $1.9T package that addresses all those things that American citizens of all stripes are heavily in favor of was opposed by every single Republican in the House; one wonders who they serve because it certainly isn't their constituents. The only line item in the package that lacked enthusiasm on the Right amongst the public was a hike in minimum wage which was duly removed and the whole thing re-approved before being passed on to the Senate — the minimum wage desperately needs to be increased, if nothing else just to track with inflation, but that battle can be fought another day.
Because Republicans refuse to do their jobs and are apparently more concerned with opposing every move Biden makes, he has no choice in this crucial first 100 days of his presidency other than to pass measures by reconciliation or executive decree. It's not a failing or reneging on a promise to try to bridge the partisan gap and be "united" in a common purpose of forward progress. Republicans will keep saying for the cameras that he's being partisan rather than united. Unity, in real terms cooperation, takes both sides. It's the clowns riding the elephants who have shown zero interest in reaching across the aisle even in these critical times, when we're still in the grip of a virus which has killed over half a million people in the past year and is only getting more contagious.
It's the GOP who cares more about playing political games than taking meaningful steps to try to keep the nation's economy from imploding. High True Unemployment (not the gimmicky way the government derives its official Unemployment figure), a dip in spending by the middle class (which always has consequences), and numerous factors like rising bond yields and slowing tech stocks, combined with slowly rising inflation, signal that indeed an economic contraction or recession could be on the way. Republicans probably even welcome a stumbling economy, since they undoubtedly feel it would give them a leg up in the 2022 midterm and 2024 general elections. This party is willing to tank the economy and hurt millions of American citizens just so they can blame it on the current President and try to slither their way back into power.
Under those circumstances and all that I've outlined here, Joe Biden can sign executive orders at the rate of one per minute until his hand falls off. The country needs him to, or we're going to be dragged down to the swamp and waterboarded for four more years starting in 2024.
Looking further ahead, there has got to be some kind of agreement that this way of governing isn't working and it isn't democracy. I'm all for divesting the Executive branch of a fair amount of its power and returning "lawmaking to the lawmakers" — Congress — but not until Congress grows up and shows it can work together, stop gerrymandering, stop trying to make it harder for people to vote, stop threatening to filibuster everything, stop politicizing the timing of appointee confirmation hearings, stop trying to delegitimize the results of a national election, and every else they've been doing that is a shameful embarrassment to country they purport to love so much.
/essay
Prabhat
Thanks for the info. I have found your blog and http://www.f1studioz.com blog to be the best informative blogs on Data Visualization.


text:
Chris Mase
Vice President, Construction Management – Austin
Chris works closely with the development team to evaluate potential deals, focusing on construction cost estimates, utility availability and other constraints. He also manages all consultants and maintain live budget throughout construction, identifying all potential cost exposures to accurately forecast contingency usage. Chris facilitates coordination amongst the design team and general contractors to minimize scope gap and conflicts as we approach full construction documents.
Chris joined United Properties in 2021. Prior to that, he served as Project Director at Kushner Companies in New York City where he lead all phases of company's ground-up multi-family residential, hospitality, office and retail projects from inception through completion. Projects include Wave Resort, a 67-key oceanfront boutique hotel in Long Branch, NJ and One Journal Square, a pair of 60-story towers with 1,700 apartment units and 40,000 SF of retail in Jersey City, NJ.
He also worked as a Project Manager at Turner Construction Co where he managed construction of over $2 Billion of new medical facilities and commercial high-rise developments. Projects include the David H. Koch Center for Cancer Care and 7 Bryant Park, the 2016 ENR New York Project of the Year. Chris served as a Structural Engineer at McLaren Engineering Group focusing on design of waterfront structures. Projects include the World Financial Center ferry terminal and the Northside Piers redevelopment in Brooklyn.
Chris has served as a mentor in the ACE Mentor Program of America which trains high school students interested in pursuing careers in architecture, engineering and construction.
Chris earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Delaware. He is a Licensed Professional Engineer.


May the blessings of Sri Ganesha be upon you all!
May He remove all the obstacles that stand in your spiritual path!
May He bestow on you all material prosperity as well as liberation!
May you get spiritual calmness (Prasanna); have desire to get liberation from life cycles (Samvega); without any attachment to anything (Nirveda); kindness (Anukampa); and belief in the nine fundamental principles (Astikya) of Jainism!
The day of Guru Purnima has great significance for spiritual sadhaks and farmers. All spiritual aspirants and devotees worship Vyasa in honor of his divine personage and all disciples perform 'puja' of their respective spiritual preceptor or 'Gurudevas'. They offer flowers and sweets to their spiritual gurus. It is also good time to begin spiritual lessons from a guru. Traditionally, spiritual seekers commence to intensify their spiritual 'sadhana' from this day.


If this game was to stay as an RTS, all bit a space RTS-MMO is pretty important, i think its universally wanted on these forums as well as one the IG2 forums also. A lot of the issues with modern day RTS games is the fact they are Turn Based, which ruins a lot of the real time stuff you get with games like IG2, plus there has never been a game since IG2 that aloud you to go right down to a planets surface, and build all the civilian and defence structures like a sim game, as well as having all the space and ground battles ontop of that eco system, utterly brilliant !! I think fans want more of THIS style of gameplay as in 12 yrs still IG2 is pretty much a one-of-a-kind game, and that says a lot in the state of the whole genre as a whole.
handling 3d space combat in my opinion was perfect in Nexus: the Jupiter incident, the A.I however was a bit slow if they can improve on these fields that would be great!
-its colony type management however to reduce micromanagement in end game there should be research field's for mega structures like Dyson spheres and Larry niven ring worlds and halo type ring world's (so when i have like 50 colonies i can just manage 1 entity per star system and maby link these star systems into provinces) with the further research into end game super weapons stemming from these mega structures like planetary annihilation module (or entire star killer's) into the ring world/Dyson sphere structure's which would make a game VERY FUN and interesting!
Obviously improving the ground combat would be a must, as good as IG2 was, and how it worked, the main focus was definitely in the space combat area's so this time around you would want a lot more depth in all these area's I would say.... I never actually used the dipomacy all that much, just in the inital stages get stop getting attacked then I'd just steamroll them at the end haha... As for the nexus combat, never could really get into that game, I liked how things would blow up, and the look of the combat was pretty sweet but the game mechanics of the combat I thought was poorly implemented as yes your right in the AI was a bit slow..
I think they will do the explosions like that.... With how technology has improved in gaming over the last decade, they'll be able to do things that was previously thought impossible to do at the time, like hi fidelity fraphics, collision physX and HD textures along with all what has been shown in the tech demo video as well. I'd much prefer a much more IG2 style then homeworld, was never a huge fan of those games personally... You couldn't build on planets in HW.
I hope Digital Reality understands that the reason why people loved & remain fans to this day is not because of the story or races of IG but because IT WAS THE BEST 4x game WE EVER PLAYED , IG II should be the definition of 4x RTS.
I'll ask around, I wasn't around back then when IG2 was released (I'm a n00bie ). But even if the original team is not there, the IG series is a big part of DR and is definitely not forgotten at all.