Profil
Will Wagner focuses his practice in the areas of consumer product defense and regulatory compliance in California. His practice centers on the defense of consumer claims involving California’s unique Proposition 65 and consumer false advertising class actions. He defends companies such as personal care product brands, food and beverage producers, and textile companies in lawsuits relating to chemicals of concern including heavy metals, PFAS, titanium dioxide, hexavalent chromium, and phthalates.
Additionally, Will defends consumer product companies against allegations of deceptive, misleading, or unsubstantiated label and advertising claims, including actions brought in California, New York, and Illinois. His experience includes defending companies against putative or threatened class action lawsuits based on PFAS, greenwashing claims, recyclability, nonfunctional slack-fill allegations, structure/function claims, and ingredient content claims.
Further, Will has broad experience navigating California and other states’ laws and regulations that impact consumer product companies. This includes advising companies on the proliferation of PFAS prohibitions, recycling laws (such as Extended Producer Responsibility), and other greenwashing issues. He also has experience in California’s regulation of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), which often involves the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Finally, Will counsels clients on issues regarding California’s Cleaning Products Right to Know Act, Safe Cosmetics Act, Transparency in Supply Chains Act, and the Organic Products Act.
Will is also a registered lobbyist in California, focusing on legislation that impacts product companies.
Kompetencje
Doświadczenie
- Many significant cosmetic companies, including Estee Lauder, Chanel, Shiseido, and Unilever in a coordinated action in California under Proposition 65 relating to the use of titanium dioxide in powder cosmetics.
- 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 PFAS false advertising cases in California and Washington, D.C. that resulted in dismissals.°
- Significant food companies in defense of claims that their products require a Proposition 65 warning for lead.
- L’Oréal USA in the first PFOA case involving cosmetics under Proposition 65. Case settled.°
- Group of defendants that produce fiberglass products against allegations that their facilities must provide Proposition 65 warnings for styrene. Case settled.°
- 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.°
°The above representations were handled by Mr. Wagner prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
- Clerkship, Justice James W. Hardesty, Supreme Court of Nevada
- Legal Extern, Arizona Governor’s Office
- Judicial Extern, Chief Judge Daniel P. Collins, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona
- Judicial Extern, Hon. David G. Campbell, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Sukcesy i wyróżnienia
- Listed, Chambers USA Guide, "Up and Coming," California – Environment, 2024
- Listed, The Legal 500 United States, Environment: Litigation, 2020 and 2024
- Member, Personal Care Products Council (PCPC)
- Member, State Bar of California
- Member, State Bar of Nevada
- Member, State Bar of Arizona
Kwalifikacje
-
J.D., cum laude, Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
- Editor-in-Chief, Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology
- B.A., University of Nevada
- California
- Nevada
- Arizona
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit