The judgment in a prior action brought under Prop. 65 against most alcoholic beverage producers was entitled to res judicata effect in this follow-on litigation, also under Prop. 65, claiming that the warning label allowed by the prior judgment was inadequate because it did not warn of dangers of inorganic arsenic in the beverages.  Here, unlike Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 675, the settlement of the prior action included a release of all claims arising from any listed chemical in a covered product, not just the chemicals that had led to the prior lawsuit.  Claims against defendants not named in the prior litigation were also properly dismissed on the ground that their labels contained the safe harbor warning prescribed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the agency charged with enforcing Prop. 65.  Giving the safe harbor warning suffices even if it does not list all harmful chemicals found in the product.

California Court of Appeal Second District, Division 4 (Epstein, P.J.); May 9, 2018; 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 418