(a)(1)Every retail seller and manufacturer doing business in this state and having annual worldwide gross receipts that exceed one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) shall disclose, as set forth in subdivision (c), its efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from its direct supply chain for tangible goods offered for sale.
(2)For the
purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(A)“Doing business in this state” shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 23101 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(B)“Gross receipts” shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 25120 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(C)“Manufacturer” means a business entity with manufacturing as its principal business activity code, as reported on the entity’s tax return filed under Part 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(D)“Retail seller” means a business entity with retail trade as its principal business activity code, as reported on the entity’s tax return filed under Part 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401) of Division 2 of
the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(b)The disclosure described in subdivision (a) shall be posted on the retail seller’s or manufacturer’s Internet Web site with a conspicuous and easily understood link to the required information placed on the business’ homepage. In the event the retail seller or manufacturer does not have an Internet Web site, consumers shall be provided the written disclosure within 30 days of receiving a written request for the disclosure from a consumer.
(c)The disclosure described in subdivision (a) shall, at a minimum, disclose to what extent, if any, that the retail seller or manufacturer does each of the following:
(1)Engages in verification of product supply chains to evaluate and address risks of human trafficking and slavery. The disclosure shall specify if the verification was not
conducted by a third party.
(2)Conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains. The disclosure shall specify if the verification was not an independent, unannounced audit.
(3)Requires direct suppliers to certify that materials incorporated into the product comply with the laws regarding slavery and human trafficking of the country or countries in which they are doing business.
(4)Maintains internal accountability standards and procedures for employees or contractors failing to meet company standards regarding slavery and trafficking.
(5)Provides company employees and management, who have direct responsibility for supply chain management, training on human trafficking
and slavery, particularly with respect to mitigating risks within the supply chains of products.
(d)The exclusive remedy for a violation of this section shall be an action brought by the Attorney General for injunctive relief. Nothing in this section shall limit remedies available for a violation of any other state or federal law.
(e)The provisions of this section shall take effect on January 1, 2012.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 2013–2020 · leading case:
Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
· cites it 3× “The Safe Harbor Rule Mars urges dismissal for the additional reason that the Supply Chains Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.43 , created a “safe harbor” for the failure to disclose the existence of child or forced labor in its supply chain.”
Robert Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2018).
“unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” by: (1) violating the “unlawful” prong based on its violation of the CLRA; (2) violating the “fraudulent” prong because it omitted information about the forced labor at the point of sale; and (3) violating the “unfair” prong because…”
Tomasella v. The Hershey Co., 962 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2020).
“19Even the one-of-its-kind California Transparency in Supply Chain Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.43 (a)(1), does not provide a statutory hook because it only goes so far as to require website disclosures about companies' "efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from…”
Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Mgmt., LLC, 315 P.3d 71 (Cal. 2013).
· cites it 2× “(b) [requiring employment agencies to notify a jobseeker whether a labor contract exists and whether union membership is required at the establishment to which the jobseeker is being sent]; Civ. Code, § 1714.43, subd. (a)(1) [requiring every retail seller and manufacturer doing…”
Dana v. Hershey Co., 180 F. Supp. 3d 652 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
· cites it 2× “§ 7112 (b), and to California’s Supply Chains Act, which is discussed in more detail below in the context of Hershey’s safe harbor doctrine argument, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.43 . Although both statutes call for certain disclosures related to labor conditions, neither expresses…”
McCoy v. Nestle USA, Inc., 173 F. Supp. 3d 954 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
“” Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.43 (a)(1). The statute does not “actually ‘bar’” any action.”
Barber v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 954 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Here, Nestlé argues that a safe harbor from Plaintiffs’ state law claims *959 was created by the California Transparency in Supply Chains' Act of 2010 (“Supply Chains Act”), Cal. Civ.Code § 1714.43. The Supply Chains Act requires any retailer who does business in California and…”
Sud v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 229 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
“California Civil Code § 1714.43. . Each of these cases is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.”
Melanie Barber v. Nestle USA, Inc. (9th Cir. 2018).
“3 • ! • 3 The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims on the ground that the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010, Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.43 , created a safe harbor that bars Plaintiffs’s lawsuit.”
Jessica Hughes v. Big Heart Pet Brands (9th Cir. 2018).
“3 • ! • 3 The district court dismissed Hughes’s claims on the ground that the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010, Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.43 , created a safe harbor that bars Hughes’s lawsuit.”
Donna De Rosa v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC (9th Cir. 2018).
“Because we affirm the district court on another ground, we do not reach this issue of whether the safe harbor doctrine applies. 4 Plaintiff has an outstanding motion to certify a question to the California Supreme Court; however, the question is not outcome determinative.”
Christina Wirth v. Mars, Inc. (9th Cir. 2018).
“4 3 The district court also dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims on the ground that the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010, Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.43 , created a safe harbor that bars Plaintiffs’s lawsuit.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.