Prop 65 Mini Blind Litigation

On July 16, 1996, Attorney General Daniel Lungren and Alameda County District Attorney Thomas Orloff filed a complaint against a number of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of mini-blinds. The action, entitled People v. Bethel Group, et al., alleges that exposures to lead occur when the chemical, added to give plastic blind slats certain performance characteristics, decomposes and covers the blind with "dust" or "chalk." Children are then allegedly exposed to lead when they touch the blinds, or the blinds are cleaned and lead dust spreads through the air. The complaint seeks civil penalties, an injunction, and restitution. Other complaints have also been filed, including a class action under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On June 22, 1998, the Alameda County Superior Court entered a consent judgment negotiated between the Attorney General, Alameda District Attorney, and many of the defendants in this case, which had grown to include a number of private plaintiff actions, including class actions. The settlement calls for reformulation of mini-blinds to eliminate lead as an intended ingredient, and a total lead content of less than 200 ppm. The defendants must pay for an extensive consumer education and rebate program. Settlement payments included $250,000 to the California Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch, $50,000 to the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, $100,000 to the Attorney General's Prop 65 Investigation Fund, $75,000 in civil penalties under Prop 65, $175,000 in civil penalties under the Unfair Competition Statute, and $25,000 each to the Attorney General and District Attorney for litigation costs.

On July 27, the Alameda Superior Court entered an order dismissing the private enforcement claims against the defendants which had settled with the Attorney General. The court expressed its "concern that when defendants deal with the Attorney General they should be able to do so content with the knowledge that thre will be finality with the process," and held that the state's settlement constituted res judicata, barring the private claims over the "same harm."

This page last updated August 1998