California Prop 65 for Imported Alcohol-Free Drinks

Proposition 65 applies to every alcohol-free drink sold to consumers in California, wherever the brand is based. If a daily serving exposes the drinker to a listed chemical above California's safe harbor level, you must warn in a prescribed form or reformulate, and private enforcers test products to find the brands that do neither. For most imported drinks the chemical that matters is lead, and its reproductive-harm threshold is 0.5 micrograms a day as of September 2026.

---

Key Takeaways

• Lead drives most drink cases. It appears in 55 of the 91 notices filed from January 2023 to 23 September 2026 against products described as drinks. Its safe harbor level is 0.5 micrograms a day as of September 2026; a serving of juice at the EU legal maximum carries about twenty times that.
• The 10-employee exemption covers your company only. Importers, distributors and retailers are usually larger, and Amazon requires warnings from sellers of any size.
• The duty sits upstream. Brands, importers and distributors warn on the label or send retailers annual written notice with warning materials.
• The short form changed on 1 January 2025. It must name a chemical, and food has its own version.
• Enforcement is private and steady. The Attorney General's database reached notice number 2025-05235 in 2025, with drinks containing lead among the targets.

What does Prop 65 require?

The operative rule is one sentence of the Health and Safety Code (section 25249.6): no person in the course of doing business may knowingly and intentionally expose anyone to a chemical on the state's list without first giving a clear and reasonable warning. The list is kept by OEHHA and was last republished on 31 July 2026.

"Knowingly" requires only knowledge that the exposure is occurring (Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, section 25102(n)); the business need not know that the exposure is unlawful.

A warning is not required if the business proves (section 25249.10(c)) the exposure falls below a safe harbor level: a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for carcinogens, set in section 25705, or a Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) for reproductive toxicants, set in section 25805. For consumer products, sections 25721 and 25821 calculate exposure from the average intake of people who use the product.

The defence for naturally occurring chemicals in food (section 25501) is narrow: it covers a chemical only to the extent that it did not come from known human activity and could not be avoided by good agricultural or manufacturing practice, and the business must keep such contaminants to the lowest level currently feasible.

The Attorney General's FAQ says out-of-state businesses are covered whenever their products cause exposures in California.

Which chemicals matter for an alcohol-free drink?

The levels in the table are set in section 25705(b) for NSRLs and section 25805(b) for MADLs.

Lead is the one to plan around. EU law caps lead in most fruit juices at 0.03 mg/kg, and at 0.05 mg/kg for juices made only from berries and other small fruits (Regulation (EU) 2023/915, Annex I, point 3.1.19, consolidated text of 19 August 2026). A 330 ml serving at the 0.03 mg/kg ceiling contains roughly 10 micrograms, twenty times the MADL. A drink can be fully legal in France and still need a California warning.

4-MEI forms when caramel color is made with ammonia, according to OEHHA's 2011 NSRL document. In EU labeling those are E150c and E150d under Regulation (EU) No 231/2012, whose specification for plain caramel (E150a) excludes ammonium compounds.

BPA has no oral safe harbor level, so a canned drink that releases a measurable amount has no published number to test against. Bisphenol S (BPS) is already on the list for female reproductive toxicity (since 29 December 2023), male reproductive toxicity (3 January 2025) and developmental toxicity (8 December 2025). OEHHA is also preparing a review of p,p′-bisphenols as a class, including their ethers and esters, for its Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee. Ask your can supplier what replaced BPA in a "BPA-free" lining.

Acrylamide forms in some foods during cooking or processing at high temperatures, in the words of the food warning in section 25607.2(c), so it matters when a drink uses roasted or heat-processed ingredients. On 2 May 2025 a federal court permanently barred enforcement of the acrylamide food warning against the California Chamber of Commerce, its members and all persons it represents, and declared the requirement unconstitutional as applied to dietary acrylamide. The Attorney General appealed in June 2025. According to the Ninth Circuit docket (No. 25-3534) as copied by CourtListener, the appeal was in court mediation with no ruling at its last update in May 2026. A business outside the Chamber's membership should not assume the order protects it.

Ethanol below 0.5% ABV. Ethanol is not listed on its own. The list names "alcoholic beverages" for cancer and "ethyl alcohol in alcoholic beverages" for developmental toxicity. Neither the Act's definitions nor the Title 27 warning regulations define "alcoholic beverage". California's Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Business and Professions Code section 23004) defines it as a drink containing 0.5% alcohol by volume or more. Read through that definition, a drink below 0.5% ABV falls outside the listing. That is our inference: no regulator or court has said so. A search of product descriptions in the 60-day notice database on 23 September 2026 for "non-alcoholic", "alcohol-free" and "dealcoholized" returned no notices. Treat a batch that finishes at 0.5% or above as an alcoholic beverage.

For botanical extracts, OEHHA's July 2026 pre-regulatory draft would add to section 25501 that a listed chemical extracted or concentrated from a plant may be present as the result of human activity, which would narrow the naturally occurring defence. It is a workshop draft and has not been adopted.

Does the 10-employee exemption protect a small European brand?

It protects your company and little else. The Act (section 25249.11(b)) excludes anyone employing fewer than 10 people, and section 25102(h) of the regulations counts all full-time and part-time employees on the date of the exposure. It does not limit the count to staff in California.

Your US importer, distributor and retailer are each a "person in the course of doing business" once they reach 10 employees. Under section 25600.2(e)(5), a retailer with actual knowledge of an exposure becomes responsible for the warning when no upstream party both has 10 or more employees and has a California agent for service of process or a place of business in California. If neither your company nor your importer or distributor meets that test, the duty can land on the retailer, and retailers write it back into supplier terms, as the examples below show.

Amazon closes the gap outright: its seller policy, a company rule, makes you responsible for the warning "even if you have fewer than 10 employees".

Who in the chain has to warn?

The Act tells regulators to place the warning burden (section 25249.11(f)) on producers and packagers where practicable, sparing retailers, and section 25600.2 does so. A manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier or distributor complies in one of two ways:

1. A warning on the label or labeling.
2. A written notice to the retailer's authorized agent with the product details and the warning materials, including wording for online sales. The notice must be renewed annually, receipt must be confirmed in writing or electronically, and a new notice is due within 90 days if the chemical or endpoint changes.

The retailer then places and maintains what it receives. It carries primary responsibility only in listed cases, such as selling under its own brand or covering up a supplier's label. The parties can reallocate all of this by written agreement (section 25600.2(i)), provided the consumer still receives a compliant warning, which is why your importer of record contract should say who warns.

Some large retailers insist on the label. Walmart's Prop 65 requirements, a company policy dated 19 December 2018 and still linked from its supplier compliance page in September 2026, refuse point-of-sale signs and require the warning on the pack. Because Walmart does not double-slot, neighbouring states may receive warned product too. Online warnings go into a Prop 65 field in Supplier Center.

What does the warning have to say?

Drinks count as food: section 25600.1(g) uses the Health and Safety Code definition of food, which includes drink. They take the food warning in section 25607.2. It carries no yellow triangle, and on a label it must be set off from other text and enclosed in a box (section 25607.1(b)).

The examples assume daily lead exposure between the MADL of 0.5 micrograms and the NSRL of 15 micrograms, so only the reproductive endpoint is crossed. Above 15 micrograms the warning must cover cancer as well.

The signal word can be WARNING, CA WARNING or CALIFORNIA WARNING. A short form must be at least 6-point type (section 25602(a)(4)) and conspicuous enough to be read and understood under customary conditions of purchase or use (section 25601(c)). If the label gives consumer information such as ingredients or nutrition in another language, the warning must appear in that language as well as English (section 25607.1(c), read with the definition of consumer information in section 25600.1(c)), which matters for bilingual EU packs.

The 2024 amendments. OEHHA's short-form rules were approved on 26 November 2024 and took effect on 1 January 2025; the adopted text amended sections 25601, 25602, 25603 and 25607.2. Short forms must now name at least one chemical, food gained an explicit short form (section 25607.2(b)), and businesses have until 1 January 2028 to switch. Products manufactured and labeled before that date may keep the old "WARNING: Cancer" style short form whenever they are sold (section 25603(c)). That transition clause sits in the general consumer-product section. Section 25607.2 has no matching clause, and OEHHA's final statement of reasons does not say whether the sell-through covers food labels. Until that is settled, the safer course for a drink brand is to use the food wording now.

Internet and catalog sales. Under section 25602(b), an online warning must appear on the product page, behind a clearly marked "WARNING" link on that page, or otherwise prominently before the purchase is completed. If the label uses a short form, the website may use the same text. Catalogues must show the warning clearly associated with the item (section 25602(c)). The same rules cover your own direct-to-consumer store. OEHHA's July 2026 pre-regulatory draft would also require internet sellers to carry the warning on the product label, not only on the website.

The rest of the US label is covered in FDA labeling requirements for imported beverages.

How does enforcement work in practice?

Private plaintiffs file the 60-day notices. Anyone may sue in the public interest after serving a 60-day notice (section 25249.7(d)) on the Attorney General, the local prosecutor and the business, with a certificate of merit, provided no public prosecutor has started and is diligently prosecuting its own case. Penalties run up to $2,500 per violation per day (section 25249.7(b)), and a quarter of any penalty (section 25249.12(d)) goes to the plaintiff. Settlements of filed cases need court approval of the warning, the penalty and the fees (section 25249.7(f)(4)).

The Attorney General numbers notices in sequence through each year. The highest 2025 number, filed on 31 December, is 2025-05235, and the most recent notice published by 23 September 2026 was 2026-04530, filed on 22 September. Lead dominates the drink notices: a search of the database for products described as a "drink" returns 91 notices filed from January 2023 to 23 September 2026, and by our count 55 of them name lead. Drinks close to the alcohol-free category appear regularly:

One sports-drink case shows the full cycle. The notice was filed on 14 November 2024 and a complaint followed on 3 April 2025. The June 2025 settlement, supplemented in July and entered as a court judgment on 3 October 2025, set a $25,000 civil penalty, an $18,490 additional settlement payment and $44,010 in legal fees and costs, plus a duty to warn above 0.5 micrograms of lead a day. Legal fees were the largest item.

What do Amazon and big retailers ask for?

Amazon, under its own seller policy, requires sellers to decide whether each product needs a warning and to enter it through the California Proposition 65 attributes on the listing's Compliance tab, choosing the Food warning type and the chemical name. Resellers must pass on the manufacturer's warning. Amazon's customer policy repeats that this applies to selling partners with fewer than 10 employees. The rest of the listing is covered in selling non-alcoholic drinks on Amazon.

Sprouts, a natural-foods grocer, writes it into its vendor terms. Its vendor indemnification agreement (revision of 1 September 2023) requires written notice of any product containing a non-exempt listed chemical, naming the chemical and the warning (section 5.5), and makes the vendor indemnify Sprouts against claims that a product violates Prop 65 (section 1.1). Expect the same questions in any retail buyer's onboarding.

A practical sequence

1. Map your ingredients and packaging against the OEHHA list: juices, botanicals, ammonia caramel colors, cans, roasted inputs.
2. Test the finished drink at an accredited laboratory, across several lots. For lead, ask for a detection limit well below 1.5 micrograms per litre, the level at which a daily 330 ml serving hits 0.5 micrograms.
3. Calculate daily exposure for an average user of your product and compare it with the MADL or NSRL.
4. Decide. Below the level, document and move on. Above it, choose between warning and reformulating; the Attorney General's FAQ confirms a reformulated product below the threshold needs no warning. If you reformulate, the US ingredient rules in reformulating an EU recipe for the US apply to the new version.
5. Warn correctly if you warn: boxed food wording, every label language, your website, Amazon's attributes, and a written allocation with your importer and retailers.
6. Document everything: test reports, calculations, supplier specifications, artwork, and retailer notices with their receipts. Newly listed chemicals get 12 months (section 25249.10(b)) before a warning is required, so recheck when OEHHA adds to the list.

A Prop 65 decision touches the label, the importer contract, Amazon listings and retailer paperwork, which sit together in what Avenor runs for European alcohol-free brands.

Sources

Laws and regulations:

1. Cal. Health and Safety Code 25249.6, Required warning before exposure to listed chemicals; Cal. Health and Safety Code 25249.7, Enforcement: civil penalties, 60-day notices and court approval of settlements; Cal. Health and Safety Code 25249.10, Exemptions from the warning requirement; Cal. Health and Safety Code 25249.11, Definitions, including the 10-employee threshold and the retailer burden; Cal. Health and Safety Code 25249.12, Division of civil penalties; Cal. Health and Safety Code 109935, Definition of food.
2. Cal. Business and Professions Code 23004, Definition of alcoholic beverage (Alcoholic Beverage Control Act).
3. 27 CCR 25102, Definitions, including employee count and "knowingly"; 27 CCR 25501, Exposure to a naturally occurring chemical in a food; 27 CCR 25600.1, Warning definitions, including consumer information and food; 27 CCR 25600.2, Responsibility to provide consumer product exposure warnings; 27 CCR 25601, Safe harbor warnings: methods and content; 27 CCR 25602, Consumer product warnings: methods of transmission, including short-form type size and internet and catalog sales; 27 CCR 25603, Consumer product warnings: content, including the short form and its transition clause; 27 CCR 25607.1, Food warnings: methods of transmission; 27 CCR 25607.2, Food warnings: content, including the food short form; 27 CCR 25705, No significant risk levels (version operative 1 October 2025); 27 CCR 25721, Level of exposure to chemicals causing cancer; 27 CCR 25805, Maximum allowable dose levels for reproductive toxicants; 27 CCR 25821, Level of exposure to chemicals causing reproductive toxicity.
4. OEHHA, Final Regulatory Text, Clear and Reasonable Warnings: Safe Harbor Methods and Content (2024), Amendments to 27 CCR 25601, 25602, 25603 and 25607.2 on short-form warnings, approved 26 November 2024.
5. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915, Annex I, point 3.1.19, Maximum levels of lead in fruit juices (consolidated text of 19 August 2026).
6. Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012, Annex, E 150a, E 150c and E 150d, Specifications for caramel colors.

Agency guidance and notices:

7. OEHHA, Proposition 65 List (2026), List of 31 July 2026, with the listing dates for each chemical; OEHHA, Current Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Levels (NSRLs) and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels (MADLs), Safe harbor level table; OEHHA, Proposition 65: Clear and Reasonable Warnings – Safe Harbor Methods and Content (2024), Rulemaking notice of 6 December 2024 with the approval and effective dates; OEHHA, Final Statement of Reasons, Clear and Reasonable Warnings: Safe Harbor Methods and Content (2024), Reasons for the short-form amendments, October 2024; OEHHA, No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for the Proposition 65 Carcinogen 4-Methylimidazole (2011), NSRL derivation and the source of 4-MEI in caramel colors; OEHHA, Proposal for Development of Hazard Identification Materials on p,p′-Bisphenol Chemicals (2025), Class review of bisphenols for reproductive toxicity, September 2025; OEHHA, Proposed Draft Regulatory Text for Pre-Regulatory Public Workshop, Omnibus 2026 (2026), Workshop draft of 30 July 2026.
8. California Attorney General, Proposition 65 Frequently Asked Questions, Out-of-state businesses, small businesses and reformulation; California Attorney General, 60-Day Notice Search, Notice database, searched 23 September 2026; California Attorney General, 60-Day Notice 2024-04785, Sports drink, lead and mercury, with complaint, settlement and judgment; California Attorney General, 60-Day Notice 2024-05186, Sparkling adaptogen drinks, lead; California Attorney General, 60-Day Notice 2025-01003, Nutrition drink, BPA; California Attorney General, 60-Day Notice 2025-01153, Kombucha, lead; California Attorney General, 60-Day Notice 2025-03196, Electrolyte drink mix, lead; California Attorney General, 60-Day Notice 2025-05235, Last notice filed in 2025; California Attorney General, 60-Day Notice 2026-01570, Sparkling hop water, lead and PFOA; California Attorney General, 60-Day Notice 2026-04530, Most recent published notice in September 2026.

Other sources:

9. California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 2:19-cv-02019 (E.D. Cal. 2025), Order of 2 May 2025 granting a permanent injunction on acrylamide food warnings, copy on the Attorney General's website.
10. California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 25-3534 (9th Cir.), Appeal docket as copied by CourtListener (Free Law Project), last updated May 2026.
11. Amazon Seller Central, California Proposition 65 (Prop 65), Company policy for sellers; Amazon Customer Service, California Proposition 65, Company policy for selling partners.
12. Walmart, Updated: California Proposition 65 Walmart Requirements (2018), Company policy for suppliers, dated 19 December 2018; Walmart, Supplier compliance areas, Company page linking the Prop 65 requirements.
13. Sprouts Farmers Market, Product Vendors Indemnification Agreement, Rev. V. 9.1.2023, Company contract terms for vendors.

Title 27 sections link to the copy of the California Code of Regulations published by Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute. All sources accessed September 2026.

Summarized from the California Health and Safety Code, Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, the Attorney General's 60-day notice database and retailer supplier materials as of 23 September 2026. This is not legal advice; have Prop 65 counsel review your test results and warning before you ship to California.