Given that it is possible to identify a California Proposition 65 label on a picture of a product used in a web store even if it is only partially visible and at angle, can that be construed as reasonable in this context?
An example of this can be seen on this web store page where only one image includes the California Proposition 65 label and then only partially visible and at angle:
I found this document from 1988 explaining the regulations but it is not entirely clear about this case.
There are two elements to any warning: the manner in which the warning is presented, and the message by which the warning is communicated. The term "reasonable" appears to have been intended to apply to the first element. The manner of transmission must be reasonable. The term "clear", on the other hand, appears to have been intended to refer to the message which the warning must convey. Therefore, in order for a warning to be clear and reasonable, the manner of transmission must be reasonable, and the message employed must be sufficiently clear to communicate the warning.
Does a clue to the existence of the label in the image reasonably present evidence that there is such a label on the product?