MR S Leather Lawsuit, San Francisco’s Iconic BDSM Shop Sued Over Toxic Gag—Hidden Chemicals in Bondage Gear Spark $2.5K-Per-Day Lawsuit
What Is the Mr S Leather Lawsuit About?
On June 6, 2025, Blue Sky Forever filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. S. Leather Co., Incorporated in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleging the company violated California health and safety codes by selling mouth gags containing toxic chemicals without required warning labels.
Here’s what you need to know right now:
The lawsuit centers on “The Jaw Master Gag,” which allegedly contains di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)—a toxic chemical that can cause birth defects and reproductive harm.
The civil case seeks hefty penalties of up to $2,500 for every day each violation occurred, plus an injunction to halt sales and potentially initiate a product recall unless the shop complies with proper warning labels.
Mr. S. Leather has been operating in San Francisco’s SoMa neighborhood since 1979, designing and producing bondage gear, leather, and fetish clothing for over 45 years.
Current Status: CEO Jonathan Schroder says the company pulled the product from shelves and its website as soon as they learned about potential chemical concerns, and the lawsuit was filed “long after we removed the item from our store.”
Here’s what should terrify every consumer: DEHP became subject to California’s “clear and reasonable warning” requirements on October 24, 2004—over 20 years ago. Yet in 2025, products still hit store shelves without these warnings. The Mr. S Leather lawsuit isn’t just about one fetish shop’s mistake—it’s about a legal system where private citizens can enforce consumer protection laws, collect attorneys’ fees, and force companies to pay $2,500 per day for violations that state regulators might never catch. This case exposes how California’s Proposition 65—designed to protect consumers from toxic chemicals—has created both a powerful shield for shoppers and a profitable weapon for “bounty hunters” filing hundreds of lawsuits annually.
Who Is Mr. S Leather and Why This Case Matters
Mr. S Leather is located at 385 8th St. in San Francisco’s SoMa district and states on its website: “We’ve been designing and producing exceptional bondage gear as well as leather, neoprene & sports clothing for kinky guys since 1979.”
The company isn’t some fly-by-night operation—it’s a landmark institution in San Francisco’s leather community with a 46-year track record.
Who Is Blue Sky Forever?
Blue Sky Forever (BSF) is a California non-profit corporation acting in the public interest to enforce Proposition 65 violations. The organization has filed similar lawsuits across California targeting companies that allegedly failed to warn consumers about toxic chemical exposure.
This matters because it reveals how California’s unique legal system allows private groups to act as enforcers when government agencies can’t keep up with every violation.
The Legal Claims: Breaking Down California’s Proposition 65
The lawsuit centers on one of California’s most powerful (and controversial) consumer protection laws.
What Is Proposition 65?
California’s Proposition 65, formally known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires businesses to warn Californians about exposures to chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm.
The law applies to businesses with 10 or more employees and requires them to provide “clear and reasonable warnings” for exposure to listed chemicals at locations within California and for goods sold in California.
What Is DEHP and Why Is It Regulated?
DEHP belongs to a family of chemicals called phthalates, which are added to plastics to make them flexible. It’s still used in various consumer products, including shower curtains, furniture, garden hoses, rainwear, medical devices, and plastic food packaging materials.
On October 24, 2003, pursuant to Proposition 65 implementing regulations, California listed DEHP as a chemical known to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm, and it became subject to warning requirements one year later on October 24, 2004.
The Specific Violation
Mr. S Leather allegedly violated Proposition 65 by selling products like “The Jaw Master Gag” without required warnings, prompting a lawsuit seeking civil penalties and an injunction.
Mr. S Leather’s Response: “We Were Trying to Make It Safer”
Jonathan Schroder, CEO of Mr. S. Leather, explained their intentions: “A Jennings mouth gag is a metal device that goes behind your teeth and keeps your mouth open. To keep the gag from damaging anyone’s teeth, we had our vendor add a rubber coating to the metal. It was a product we were proud to improve.”
The irony is painful: the company added rubber coating to protect users’ teeth, not realizing the coating contained Proposition 65-listed chemicals.
Schroder stated: “Prop65 warnings are required by law when certain chemicals are present, and we were unaware that the rubber added to the gag had any such chemicals. Once we heard that it may, we quickly pulled the item from the shelves and from our website, and we ceased selling it completely.”
He also noted: “Our products center around people enjoying their bodies, and we treat safety seriously, even if you are using extreme things in the bedroom. Many everyday consumer items including food can contain chemicals that require Prop65 warnings.”
Timeline: How the Case Developed
March 16, 2017: A 60-Day Notice of Violation was filed regarding Mr. S Leather products, the required first step before filing a Proposition 65 lawsuit.
Pre-June 2025: Mr. S Leather removed the product from shelves and website after learning of potential chemical concerns.
June 6, 2025: Blue Sky Forever filed the civil lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court.
June 7, 2025: News of the lawsuit breaks, with multiple media outlets covering the case.
Current Status: The case is being heard in San Francisco County Superior Courts with Judge Rochelle C. East presiding.
What the Law Actually Says: Proposition 65’s Warning Requirements
Understanding this lawsuit requires knowing California’s unique enforcement mechanism.
The Warning Requirement
Required warning language reads: “WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), which is known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to: www.P65Warnings.ca.gov”
Who Can Enforce Proposition 65?
Enforcement is carried out through civil lawsuits brought by the California Attorney General, district attorneys, city attorneys of cities with populations exceeding 750,000, or private parties acting in the public interest.
Private parties can bring lawsuits, but only if they’ve provided at least 60 days notice to the business, the Attorney General, and appropriate district and city attorneys, and those government officials have not taken action.
Penalties
Businesses found in violation face civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation.
The Proposition 65 Controversy: Consumer Protection or Bounty Hunter Paradise?
The Mr. S Leather case highlights an ongoing debate about California’s enforcement system.
The “Bounty Hunter” Problem
California Proposition 65 places the burden of proof on defendant businesses. To bring a Prop 65 action, private enforcers need only detect a listed chemical at any level, requiring the business to show the level is too low to require a warning. This burden-shifting mechanism—combined with the ability of private enforcers to collect attorneys’ fees—has fueled well-documented abuse of the statute.
Blue Sky Forever has filed numerous similar cases. Recent notices show the organization pursuing violations involving lead in barley grass powder, DEHP in various products, and other chemical exposure claims across California.
Legitimate Consumer Protection
Despite controversies, Proposition 65 has driven reformulation of countless products. Many settlement agreements for DEHP violations have been reached for various products, leading manufacturers to reformulate products to eliminate listed chemicals rather than simply adding warnings.
What This Means for Adult Product Manufacturers
The Mr. S Leather lawsuit sends shockwaves through the adult products industry.
Supply Chain Due Diligence
Companies must investigate their entire supply chain. Mr. S Leather’s CEO explained they had their vendor add rubber coating, but were unaware of the chemical composition. That’s no longer acceptable—manufacturers bear responsibility for every component.
Testing Requirements
For DEHP specifically, California regulations establish safe harbor level thresholds that dictate maximum amounts permissible without necessitating a Prop 65 warning label. Companies must proactively test products.
Warning Label Compliance
If a product contains a chemical that exceeds No Significant Risk Levels (NSRLs) or Maximum Allowable Dose Levels (MADLs), regulations require clear and reasonable warnings provided through “safe harbor warnings” guaranteed to comply with Prop 65.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Mr S Leather Lawsuit
What product is involved in the Mr S Leather lawsuit?
The lawsuit centers on “The Jaw Master Gag” and related mouth gags allegedly containing DEHP without required warning labels.
Has Mr. S Leather been fined or penalized yet?
As of November 2025, no final judgment or settlement has been announced. The lawsuit seeks penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation.
What is DEHP and why is it dangerous?
DEHP is a phthalate chemical added to plastics for flexibility. It’s known to California to cause birth defects and reproductive harm.
Is this the only Proposition 65 lawsuit against adult product companies?
No. The adult products industry faces similar challenges as other consumer product sectors. However, specific lawsuit data for the fetish/BDSM gear industry isn’t publicly compiled.
Can consumers still buy Mr. S Leather products?
Yes. The company removed only the specific product at issue and continues operating its San Francisco store and online business.
What should I do if I purchased The Jaw Master Gag?
Proposition 65 warnings inform you that a product contains listed chemicals, but don’t necessarily mean the product is unsafe or will cause harm. If concerned, discontinue use and consult the company or a healthcare provider.
Could other California adult product retailers face similar lawsuits?
Absolutely. Private Prop 65 enforcement actions involving consumer products are widespread, with specialized law firms and nonprofit organizations issuing hundreds of notices annually.
What You Should Know If You Manufacture or Sell Products in California
Test Everything
Don’t rely on supplier assurances. Retailers and distributors throughout the supply chain share responsibility for compliance.
Implement Warning Programs
The warning requirement applies to all companies in the chain of distribution—manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, including online retailers.
Document Your Compliance Efforts
Proactively addressing Prop 65 concerns with experienced counsel can help avoid costly lawsuits. For Mr. S Leather, the company’s swift action in removing products may help mitigate penalties.
Monitor the Chemical List
Proposition 65 regulates over 1,000 substances, and the list is updated annually. Companies must stay current on newly listed chemicals.
The Bigger Picture: Proposition 65’s Impact on Consumer Products
From July 2021 to 2025, Prop 65 enforcement actions have targeted everything from cosmetics to food products, with bounty hunters showing few signs of slowing down.
Recent legal developments suggest the tide may be turning. Federal courts have preliminarily enjoined Proposition 65 enforcement for certain chemicals like titanium dioxide and acrylamide, finding the warning requirements may violate First Amendment protections against compelled speech.
These rulings don’t affect DEHP cases like Mr. S Leather’s, but they signal growing judicial skepticism toward California’s unique enforcement system.
The Mr. S Leather lawsuit isn’t just about bondage gear or adult products. It’s about every company selling anything in California—from furniture to children’s toys to medical devices. The message is clear: ignorance of your product’s chemical composition isn’t a defense, good intentions don’t matter, and California’s Proposition 65 enforcement system will hold you accountable whether state regulators ever show up or not. For Mr. S Leather, adding rubber to protect users’ teeth became a legal nightmare. For every other manufacturer, it’s a wake-up call.
Related Legal Resources:
- Learn about consumer protection lawsuits and privacy violations
- Understand product liability claims and FDA recalls
- Explore California regulatory enforcement and legal compliance
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah