California targets online sales, QR codes, retailer duties, and short-form labeling in a broad Proposition 65 warning overhaul

SACRAMENTO, California, 5 August 2026 — California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is considering wide-ranging amendments to the Proposition 65 warning regulations that could affect online sellers, retailers, food and consumer-product manufacturers, and suppliers of off-road equipment parts.

The “Omnibus 2026” package contains eight proposed changes, including dual-warning requirements for internet sales, a new QR-code warning method, tailored warnings for off-road parts, revisions to retailer responsibilities, and clarification of when extracted or concentrated chemicals may fall outside the naturally occurring exemption.

OEHHA presented the proposals at a pre-regulatory workshop on 30 July 2026. The agency stressed that the drafts are for discussion only, do not supersede current regulations, and may change or never proceed to formal rulemaking.

Online sellers may need warnings in two places

One of the most commercially significant proposals would clarify that products sold through websites and digital applications must carry warnings for two separate audiences: the online purchaser and the person receiving or using the delivered product.

Manufacturers, producers, packagers, importers, suppliers, distributors, and retailers selling products online would have to provide a warning before purchase through the product display page, a warning hyperlink, or another prominent online display.

A separate warning would also have to appear on or with the product when it is delivered. An online warning would therefore not replace the warning associated with the physical product. OEHHA described the proposal’s goal as making clear that warnings must be provided in two places.

The clarification is particularly important for businesses that currently treat an online warning as satisfying the entire warning obligation.

QR codes could become a recognized warning method

OEHHA is also proposing to add QR codes as an authorized method for delivering product-specific warnings, describing the change as an effort to modernize Proposition 65 warning methods.

The QR code could appear on a posted sign, shelf tag, shelf sign, product label, or other labeling. Scanning the code would have to provide the applicable product-specific warning.

However, a QR code could not simply appear without explanation. It would be accompanied by a statement identifying it as a Proposition 65 warning, naming one or more chemicals and instructing consumers to scan the code for more information.

The draft leaves several implementation questions open, including the webpage to which the code should direct consumers and what additional information, beyond the warning itself, may appear there.

New warning option proposed for off-road equipment parts

The package would establish a tailored safe-harbour warning for parts used in off-road vehicles and equipment, including equipment associated with construction, mining, agriculture, forestry, and other non-road applications.

Businesses could continue using the full-length or short-form consumer-product warning or adopt the proposed tailored warning.

The proposed language would tell consumers that handling off-road parts can expose them to chemicals such as phthalates and lead, which can cause cancer and reproductive harm. It would advise users to work in a well-ventilated area, wear gloves, and wash their hands.

OEHHA is seeking feedback on several unresolved issues, including whether the provision should refer to off-road “vehicles” or “equipment,” where point-of-sale warnings should appear and whether the proposed chemical and exposure-reduction information is appropriate.

Short-form warnings may identify multiple chemicals

The proposal also addresses California’s recently revised short-form warning requirements.

Products manufactured and/or labelled on or after 1 January 2028 must use the new short-form warning language, which requires the warning to disclose at least one Proposition 65-listed chemical associated with the relevant cancer or reproductive-toxicity endpoint.

The Omnibus proposal would revise the templates so that warnings refer to the name of “one or more chemicals.” That wording could initially suggest that businesses may have to identify multiple chemicals.

OEHHA’s workshop presentation, however, describes the amendment as a technical clarification intended to align short-form warnings with full-length warnings and make clear that businesses may warn for more than one chemical. It does not state that companies must identify every applicable chemical.

Companies preparing labels for the 1 January 2028 deadline would therefore still need to name at least one relevant listed chemical while retaining the option to disclose additional chemicals.

Naturally occurring exemption faces clarification

OEHHA is proposing to clarify when a chemical extracted or concentrated from a natural source may be considered present because of human activity.

Existing regulations provide an exception for chemicals that are naturally occurring in food and are not present because of human activity. Under the proposed clarification, extracting or concentrating a chemical from a source such as a plant may constitute human activity even when the process does not alter the chemical’s CAS Registry Number.

OEHHA emphasized that whether a chemical is present because of human activity would continue to depend on the specific facts.

The clarification could be significant for companies producing botanical extracts, concentrates, and other processed natural ingredients. A business may not be able to rely solely on an unchanged chemical identity or CAS number to establish that a listed chemical remains naturally occurring.

Retailers could remain liable after removing packaging

The package would simplify the language describing when a retailer becomes responsible for communicating a warning supplied by an upstream business.

Current language focuses on whether a retailer covered, obscured, or altered a warning label. The proposed text would instead refer more generally to a retailer failing to provide a warning that it received.

OEHHA explained that the change is intended to make clear that a warning must still reach the consumer when a retailer removes a product from its original packaging before sale or use. The agency gave the example of individual products removed from a warned bulk box that was not intended for display to consumers.

OEHHA also reiterated that manufacturers and packagers generally carry primary responsibility for warnings rather than retailers. Retailers can nevertheless become responsible in specified circumstances, including failing to pass along warning materials, selling private-label products, or knowingly introducing a listed chemical.

Scientific committee voting rules could change

Another amendment would revise the voting process for the Carcinogen Identification Committee and the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee.

The quorum requirements would remain unchanged. Once a quorum is present, however, affirmative action would require a majority of the members present rather than a majority of all appointed committee members.

The final topic would update outdated regulatory citations and correct formatting.

Implications for industry

Although the proposals remain preliminary, companies should assess how the changes could affect warning systems already being redesigned for the 1 January 2028 short-form deadline.

Online sellers may need coordinated processes that place warnings both before checkout and on or with delivered products. Retailers that break down bulk packaging may need controls ensuring that warnings continue to reach individual consumers.

Companies interested in QR codes would also have to consider warning-page governance, product-to-warning mapping, and procedures to keep chemical information accurate. The proposed QR-code method would supplement the warning process rather than permit businesses to replace warnings with an unexplained code.

Manufacturers relying on the naturally occurring exemption should review whether extraction and concentration processes could be characterised as human activity, even when the chemical name and CAS number remain unchanged.

While OEHHA’s indicates that it is seeking to create a technical alignment rather than a change in policy, companies should continue monitoring OEHHA’s rulemaking and consider submitting comments urging the agency to preserve or clearly confirm its position that identifying a single relevant chemical will remain sufficient under the final short-form warning requirements.

Public comments will be accepted electronically on or before 7 September 2026.