The idea that Prop 37 will spawn lawsuits like Prop 65 did is incorrect ( though the positives of Prop 65 have outweighed some of the mistakes in the language of the legislation). Let’s take a look at this ‘scare tactic’ that the no group is using to mislead you. Below is a comment in response to an LA Weekly article that was substandard in its research and facts – This comment is from a consumer protection attorney in the specifics of 37’s language.
‘The remedies which the statute allow are injunctions — to stop the
false labeling — and attorney fees and costs of suit for protecting the
public. The idea that attorneys will be making millions by bogus
lawsuits is another of Ms. Stuart’s outright misrepresentation. The
consumer attorney is paid if any only if he/she is correct that there
has in fact been mislabeling. If an attorney brings a bogus lawsuit,
then the Supreme Court has already said what the small business should
do to protect itself. I know because I was the defense attorney who
prevailed in this case to prevent bogus toxic tort lawsuits.
In Bockrath v Aldrich Chemical, Justice Mosk said that the attorney
may be disciplined by the State Bar and the defendant can use CCP 127.8
to shift the costs to the attorney who brings the bogus lawsuit. CCP
128.7 is quite effective for two reasons: (1) Dishonest attorneys know
if their lawsuit is BS and thus they know that they will lose if
challenged, and (2) Dishonest attorneys are greedy and do not want to
pay the litigation costs and attorney fees for either themselves or the
defendant business which they wrongfully sued. If the lawsuit is bogus,
it is easy to find an attorney to defend on a contingency basis —
which means the business does not have to pay up-front or pays his
lawyer only a small percentage up-front.
Manufacturers of carcinogens and other mega corporations out to rip
off the consumer have used this false specter of a flood of shake-down
lawsuit to stop most of California consumer protection statutes. That
is why consumers who tried to stop the massive frauds in the home
mortgage market in 2005 and 2006 were unable to do anything.
Irresponsible journalists like Ms. Stuart had convinced people to
decimate California’s Unfair Business Practices Law so Countrywide and
other corrupt mortgage lenders could continue to flood the international
mortgage market with defective securitized mortgages culminating in the
Crash of 2008. There are real world disasters when the public is
disarmed in the face of predatory businesses like the Koch Bros, Goldman
Sachs and Monsanto.’
See the whole story and comments here – http://www.laweekly.com/2012-10-25/news/gmo-proposition-37-backfires-little-guys/
