BREAKING NEWS: The California Supreme Court has granted the defendants' petition for review in the Santa Clara lawsuit.  Click here for the news release.

For information on the Rhode Island Supreme Court Decision, click here.

This Web site is intended to provide information about lead pigment litigation.

The dramatic decrease in the blood lead levels of children over the past decades has been described by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a public health success story.  Yet, since 1987, scores of lawsuits have been filed against former manufacturers of lead pigment used in residential paint and companies that bought businesses that once made lead pigment.

More than 20 years later, one thing is clear – these lawsuits are without merit.

Interior lead-based house paint has not been made in more than 50 years.  When it was made, it was sought after because it was washable and durable – and it was recommended and even required by federal and state governments for government housing projects and other buildings.  In 1955, manufacturers at the time acted voluntarily to eliminate the marketing of lead-based interior paint.  For more detailed information, please view our “History of the Use of Lead Pigments in House Paint” page.

The former manufacturers are the wrong target.  Every federal, state and local law on the books puts the obligation on landlords to prevent or abate lead-based paint hazards.  This is no different than the requirements on landlords to provide safe premises, heat and clean water.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that lead paint, when it is well maintained and intact, typically poses no health risk.

Courts have consistently held that landlords are responsible for risks from poorly maintained lead paint.  Lawsuits against former manufacturers have been rejected by all courts in which the cases are resolved.

This Web site provides information about the lawsuits. For further information about lead pigment litigation, please call (866) 202-2476.