A prior post noted the very substantial problems with AB 227. If it was meant to be a universal cure, it was woefully inadequate.
However, it now appears that its scope has been limited substantially, which makes it somewhat more reasonable as a solution to the tactics used by some plaintiffs to "shakedown" small business owners.
At the initial hearing on the bill before the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee on April 16, 2013, the bill was opposed by various plaintiff groups. Assemblyman Gatto noted that his intent was to prevent certain "shakedown" practices and that he would amend accordingly. With that understanding, the bill passed out of Committee.
The next hearing was in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Apparently Gatto and the opponents struck a deal because there was no opposition that appeared at the hearing. The changes have now become manifest:
The bill only applies to
In order for the target of the Prop. 65 notice to be able to render the issue moot, it must:
AB 227 also contains the following new provisions:
The history of the legislation, it changes in wording, and the votes as it moves through the legislative process can be found at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB227&search_keywords=