Dr. Blake Livingood’s supplement brand has quietly inked a California Proposition 65 settlement after independent lab testing found lead and the PFAS chemical PFOA in multiple powders and mixes. The deal caps total payments at $50,000 and tacks on warning, testing and sales restrictions that will change how the company pitches its collagen and greens lines to California customers.
According to documents filed with the California Attorney General, DLG Holdings, LLC, doing business as Livingood Daily, agreed to a $50,000 total payment and is permanently barred from manufacturing for sale in California, distributing into California, or directly selling any covered product that exposes a person to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day or any detectable level of PFOA unless the product carries the required Proposition 65 warning.
That $50,000 figure is carved up into a $5,000 civil penalty (with most of that remitted to the state fund), reimbursements and legal fees, and charges that ERC says cover investigative and in-house costs. The paperwork also notes the settlement is not an admission of liability. Hannah Howell summarized the allocation and timing in a May 2026 report.
Which Livingood Daily Products Got Flagged
The Environmental Research Center filed three Proposition 65 notices in June and July 2024 that together named eleven Livingood Daily products in the collagen and greens families. ERC’s case files list items such as Chocolate Plant Collagen Powder, Vanilla Plant Collagen Powder, Vanilla Collagen + Dr. Livingood Coffee and several Greens powders as the covered products, and state that three plant-based collagens tested positive for both lead and PFOA. Environmental Research Center.
New Testing Rules And Warning Labels
Under the consent agreement, Livingood Daily has to arrange annual lead and PFOA testing for three randomly selected samples of each covered product for at least three consecutive years. The testing must use inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) with a limit of quantification at or below 0.005 mg/kg for lead.
The settlement also tightens up who can run the tests. Labs must be certified by California’s Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program or registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. California Attorney General.
Where Shoppers Are Seeing The Same SKUs
Livingood Daily sells a broad catalog of supplements from its own online store, including the collagen and greens lines named in the notices, and the brand also shows up on third-party marketplaces. Livingood Daily and multiple marketplace listings (including retailer pages) display the same SKUs that were identified in the notices.
On the customer-service front, consumer-protection records show routine e-commerce headaches. The Better Business Bureau lists 47 complaints about Livingood Daily in the past three years, mostly about billing, delivery and product issues. Better Business Bureau.
Why California Cares About PFOA And Lead
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has listed PFOA under Proposition 65, first as a reproductive toxin and more recently as a chemical known to cause cancer. That listing means its presence in food-grade supplements kicks in the warning and enforcement process. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Under Proposition 65, private enforcers like ERC can file notices and negotiate settlements that fund testing, public education and civil penalties. The Livingood Daily agreement is one more example of that private-party enforcement model resulting in product warnings and ongoing monitoring obligations.
What Happens Next For Livingood Daily
The settlement requires Livingood Daily to stop California sales of covered products that exceed the lead or PFOA thresholds unless they carry the required warnings, and to provide ERC with testing records on request. Company and ERC signoffs on the agreement close out the immediate enforcement push, and the paperwork states that the payment resolves the notices without any admission of liability. Hannah Howell.
For now, the case highlights how state-level chemical listings and private enforcement under Proposition 65 keep turning up the heat on supplement makers to prove and document the safety of powdered ingredients that can pick up contaminants during manufacturing or processing.
