Skip to main content

Will Wagner focuses his practice on consumer product defense, regulatory compliance, and lobbying consumer product issues in California. Particularly, his practice centers on defending and advising companies on California's unique Proposition 65 law. He represents personal care product manufacturers, food and beverage producers, garment and accessory companies, and other companies in lawsuits relating to Prop 65 chemicals of concern—heavy metals, acrylamide, asbestos, PFOA, BPA, titanium dioxide, hexavalent chromium, DEHP (and other regulated phthalates), styrene, formaldehyde gas, and many more.

Mr. Wagner also defends consumer product companies against allegations of false and misleading label and advertising claims, including actions brought under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). His experience includes defending companies against putative or threatened class action lawsuits based on PFAS, greenwashing claims, nonfunctional slack-fill allegations, and claims relating to the purity of a product.

In the regulatory compliance arena, Mr. Wagner regularly advises on issues relating to product formulation, centering on the proliferation of PFAS laws and regulations, as well as Prop 65 product compliance and risk mitigation. He has broad experience navigating California laws and regulations that impact consumer product companies, including advising companies in connection with California's regulation of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), the Cleaning Products Right to Know Act, the Safe Cosmetics Act, the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, and the Organic Products Act.

Finally, Mr. Wagner is a registered lobbyist in California, focusing on legislation that impacts product companies.


  • Shiseido Americas Corporation in the Southern District of New York against allegations that bareMinerals products are falsely advertised because they contain PFAS. Case pending.
  • Coty Inc. in the Superior Court of Washington, DC against allegations that a CoverGirl product is falsely advertised because it contains PFAS. Case pending.
  • L’Oréal USA in the first PFOA case involving cosmetics under Proposition 65. Case settled on favorable terms.
  • Group of defendants that produce fiberglass products against allegations that their facilities must provide Proposition 65 warnings for styrene. Case settled on favorable terms.
  • Bausch Health USA against claims that certain talc products required Proposition 65 warnings for heavy metal. Summary judgment granted in favor of client.
  • Bausch Health USA against the claims that certain talc products were falsely advertised because they contained heavy metals and asbestos under the CLRA and UCL. Motion to dismiss granted for client.
  • Subsidiary of the Men’s Wearhouse against allegations that airline uniforms required warnings for formaldehyde (gas) under Proposition 65. Case settled on favorable terms.


Consumer Health & Personal Care Products: Litigation Trends
Arnold & Porter Webinar
California Textile Recycling Legislation Delayed to 2024 — And in Need of Improvement
California’s Extended Producer Responsibility Law: Today is the Second Best Time to Prepare
Legal Updates on PFAS in Products
Food & Drug Law Institute Update Magazine (Summer 2022)
PFAS Regulatory and Litigation Developments in Personal Care and Consumer Health Products
Insights for Personal and Consumer Health Products Companies: A Webinar Series



  • J.D., Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, cum laude
  • B.A., University of Nevada, Reno


  • California
  • Nevada
  • Arizona
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
  • U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit


  • Supreme Court of Nevada, The Honorable Justice James Hardesty