What are the legal outcomes of the California Proposition 65 action and any settlement terms with Dr. Berg Nutritionals?
Executive summary
The California Attorney General brought a Proposition 65 enforcement action against The Health & Wellness Center, Inc., doing business as Dr. Berg Nutritionals, which resulted in a consent judgment and related settlement documents filed with the court [1][2]. The public filings identify specific Dr. Berg products and allege exposures to listed chemicals (notably lead), require the defendant to be treated as a covered business under Prop 65, and place obligations on the company consistent with Prop 65 regulation, but the searchable snippets do not disclose finalized financial penalties or every injunctive provision in plain text here [3][2].
1. Background: how this Prop 65 action began and what was alleged
The Attorney General’s complaint traces to 60‑day notices served in August 2021 and alleges Dr. Berg Nutritionals failed to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings for products that allegedly exposed California consumers to chemicals listed under Proposition 65, including lead and other listed substances identified in the notices [1][3]. The notices and complaint invoke California Health & Safety Code §25249.5 et seq., the statutory framework that requires businesses with ten or more employees to warn before exposures to listed cancer‑ or reproductive‑toxicity chemicals [1][3].
2. Legal outcome: consent judgment and enforcement posture
The matter did not end in a jury verdict; instead the parties executed a Consent Judgment and corresponding settlement filings that are part of the Attorney General’s Prop 65 litigation docket—documents that memorialize agreed terms and are accessible through the AG’s Prop 65 litigation and settlements pages [2][4]. Those filings treat Dr. Berg Nutritionals as a “person in the course of doing business” subject to Proposition 65 and therefore subject to the statutory warning and compliance obligations [3].
3. What the settlement requires — public record versus gaps in available snippets
Public excerpts identify the specific products cited in the notices (for example, a Keto Meal Replacement and a Cruciferous Superfood product) and the chemicals allegedly present above allowable levels (lead is explicitly named in the public notice synopsis) [3]. The Consent Judgment framework and complaint reference the New Warning Regulations and the parties’ agreement that Dr. Berg is covered by Prop 65, which implies injunctive obligations such as providing compliant warnings or correcting exposures as provided under the statute and regulations [1][3]. However, the snippet evidence assembled here does not reveal concrete settlement amounts, itemized civil penalties, or detailed remedial steps (e.g., reformulation, testing protocols, notice language or payment schedules); those specifics would be in the full consent judgment and settlement exhibits on the AG’s docket, which are referenced but not fully quoted in the available search snippets [2][4].
4. Broader context and competing perspectives
Prop 65 settlements commonly combine injunctive relief (warnings, reformulation, testing) with civil penalties and payments to enforcers and claimants, and the AG publishes many such consent judgments and annual settlement reports for public review [5][4]. The dietary supplement industry pushes back that some alleged exposures arise from naturally occurring contaminants (a defense raised in many Prop 65 contexts), and commentators note that supplements face distinctive compliance challenges given natural trace chemicals in food‑derived ingredients [6][7]. The public filings here align with standard state enforcement practice while leaving room for industry arguments about whether an exposure “requires” a warning under the law [7][6].
5. Remaining questions and where to look for full terms
The authoritative resolution of what Dr. Berg agreed to—financial penalties, exact warning language, testing or reformulation obligations, and timelines—requires reading the full Consent Judgment and settlement exhibits on the California Attorney General’s Prop 65 litigation pages or the specific settlement PDF tied to AG docket number 2021‑01904, documents that are available on the AG site but whose substantive line‑item terms are not fully reproduced in the snippets summarized here [2][3][4]. The AG’s Prop 65 portal and the specific settlement PDF are the primary sources for confirming precise monetary and injunctive terms [4][3].